5 ms·

"Although I don't necessarily think it will be because of war, I can see a potential future where people/persons decide democracy is a less effective system" I

"Although I don't necessarily think it will be because of war, I can see a potential future where people/persons decide democracy is a less effective system" Its probably worth pointing out just how unlikely it is that it would be because of war. The democratic peace is probably the closest thing to a universal law of international relations that we have. So if democracy does have drawbacks in terms of speed of decision making, it has more than its share of upside too.

TrevorJ 14y ago
The early Romans had some good success with temporary emergency dictatorships to cut through the deadlock in times of emergency. This didn't really stop working for them till they faced the threat of Hannibal, and appointed Fabius Maximus who spent a few years studiously avoiding direct conflict with Hannibal, and the Senate got impatient and wrested back control.
- philwelch 14y ago
  There was also that one guy, Julius something, who didn't want to give back control ;)
  - kristianc 14y ago
    I don't see what that has to do with the democratic peace, which is about nations propensity to declare war on each other.
    - jinlking 14y ago
      ok
    - philwelch 14y ago
      I was commenting on the Roman practice of appointing a dictator. See my direct response to you for some thoughts on the democratic peace theory.
  - acheron 14y ago
    Well, it started with Sulla first; that's where Caesar learned it from.
philwelch 14y ago
Hmm.... More on the "democratic peace" (it's not so clear cut): http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/demowar.htm http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/demowar.htm
grecy 14y ago
cough... Patriot Act... cough Not to mention the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA)
scarmig 14y ago
Eh. The democratic peace theory really just relies on a perpetual no-true-Scotsman approach. Either something's not really a democracy or not really a war. Native American tribes? Well, they had democratic societies, but they're very different from the liberal state that has come to predominate in contemporary times. Franco-Prussian conflict? Prussia's legislatures were dominated by a rich hereditary landowning class. American Civil War? Well, civil wars don't count, and the franchise wasn't universal. World War I? Well, Germany might have had elections and might have had a wider effective franchise than many parts of the USA, but it was a bad guy, so it doesn't count. Various conflicts fostered by the Western liberal democracies (Iran, Chile, etc.)? Well, those were coups and not really wars. What "democratic peace" really seems to mean is "countries that are under the umbrella of the United States and have highly developed economies don't go to war against each other." Give it 20 years time, and when the newly elected government of China gets into a shooting war with the government of the United States over some stupid shit (poll driven aggression in the strait?) we'll go back to arguing that China isn't a real democracy because it had only had one or two national elections, or the United States isn't a real democracy because all its state apparatus and elections are controlled by an unelected elite.
- nl 14y ago
  countries that are under the umbrella of the United States and have highly developed economies don't go to war against each other Except in the case of the Falklands War. And the Israeli bombing of the Iraqi nuclear reactor (Iraq was a US ally at the time). And the Turkish/Greek air battles over the Aegean Sea (eg, Turkish & Greek F-16's dogfighting and crashing into each other in 2006: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek%E2%80%93Turkish_relations#Incidents http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek%E2%80%93Turkish_relations...). I agree with your general principle though.

TrevorJ 14y ago

The early Romans had some good success with temporary emergency dictatorships to cut through the deadlock in times of emergency. This didn't really stop working for them till they faced the threat of Hannibal, and appointed Fabius Maximus who spent a few years studiously avoiding direct conflict with Hannibal, and the Senate got impatient and wrested back control.

philwelch 14y ago
There was also that one guy, Julius something, who didn't want to give back control ;)
- kristianc 14y ago
  I don't see what that has to do with the democratic peace, which is about nations propensity to declare war on each other.
  - jinlking 14y ago
    ok
  - philwelch 14y ago
    I was commenting on the Roman practice of appointing a dictator. See my direct response to you for some thoughts on the democratic peace theory.
- acheron 14y ago
  Well, it started with Sulla first; that's where Caesar learned it from.

philwelch 14y ago

Hmm.... More on the "democratic peace" (it's not so clear cut): http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/demowar.htm http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/demowar.htm

grecy 14y ago

cough... Patriot Act... cough Not to mention the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA)

scarmig 14y ago

Eh. The democratic peace theory really just relies on a perpetual no-true-Scotsman approach. Either something's not really a democracy or not really a war. Native American tribes? Well, they had democratic societies, but they're very different from the liberal state that has come to predominate in contemporary times. Franco-Prussian conflict? Prussia's legislatures were dominated by a rich hereditary landowning class. American Civil War? Well, civil wars don't count, and the franchise wasn't universal. World War I? Well, Germany might have had elections and might have had a wider effective franchise than many parts of the USA, but it was a bad guy, so it doesn't count. Various conflicts fostered by the Western liberal democracies (Iran, Chile, etc.)? Well, those were coups and not really wars. What "democratic peace" really seems to mean is "countries that are under the umbrella of the United States and have highly developed economies don't go to war against each other." Give it 20 years time, and when the newly elected government of China gets into a shooting war with the government of the United States over some stupid shit (poll driven aggression in the strait?) we'll go back to arguing that China isn't a real democracy because it had only had one or two national elections, or the United States isn't a real democracy because all its state apparatus and elections are controlled by an unelected elite.

nl 14y ago
countries that are under the umbrella of the United States and have highly developed economies don't go to war against each other Except in the case of the Falklands War. And the Israeli bombing of the Iraqi nuclear reactor (Iraq was a US ally at the time). And the Turkish/Greek air battles over the Aegean Sea (eg, Turkish & Greek F-16's dogfighting and crashing into each other in 2006: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek%E2%80%93Turkish_relations#Incidents http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek%E2%80%93Turkish_relations...). I agree with your general principle though.