|
|
|
|
|
|
by dragontamer
1871 days ago
|
|
|
I've twice clarified what the central thesis of my post was, and you've now twice ignored my clarifications. The democracy point is a side-point. But if you're interested in it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_peace_theory My main point is: 1. Trade is NOT a useful deterrent for war. 2. We have a (seemingly) superior recipe for peace: the Democracy Peace Theory. I don't think its perfect, but its a superior theory to the Trade-Peace Theory. If you disagree with #2, that's fine. It doesn't change the fact that its a well regarded theory of peace. Either way, it doesn't really change my #1 point about the Trade-Peace Theory seemingly being busted. ------------- The point is that democracies do not go to war WITH OTHER DEMOCRACIES. That's the democracy peace theory, and so far it has held true. |
|
|
Respectfully, since you affirm your convictions re: #2, my goal here is to get you to think critically about why "democratic" nations do not go to war with one another, and whether it may be helpful to consider theories of war which do not so transparently "take a side" in present-day geopolitics, and which can account for decades of warfare waged by democracies
If a "recipe for peace" permits its favored system of governance to war with rival systems for political and economic dominance, perhaps it's not really a comprehensive theory of war and peace
Perhaps it's more about justifying "democracy"