"There has never been a war between two genuine democracies."

[yinyinwang]

I would like to change the topic into "the degree of democracy will reduce the chance of war between two coountries".

 

[JamesDillon]

I would like to change the topic into "the degree of democracy will reduce the chance of war between two coountries".

To the extent that may be true, I wonder if it's not a matter of correlation rather than causation, since democracy has, until very recently, typically been adopted by relatively stable, affluent nations in the European Enlightenment tradition, that would arguably be less likely to go to war with each other for reasons relating to, but not arising directly from, their democratic forms of government.

 

[HeavyAaron]

Egads -and Athens had slavery, among other things.

And I'm pretty sure the slaves did not have suffrage. But name ANY other democracy on a nation or nation/state level that was a democracy instead of a republic or parlament.

Aaron

 

[Ziggurat]

Yes.

You're tossing around a term that aren't really applicable here (more on that below). I'm setting up a definition of what I consider a full democracy. With the definition I use, pre-civil war America does not fit. That's not cherry picking at all. In fact, I'm not even the one who picked that instance, so I don't understand how you concluded that I cherry picked at all. The only objection I could imagine is that either my definition is bad (which is not cherry picking) or that I extrapolated unsupported conclusions beyond that particular instance (which isn't quite cherry picking), but I never made any conclusion about whether or not democracies never war with each other. In fact, I've already suggested that I think that's probably not the case.

You're right. You do think that. That's your after-the-fact judgement that would not have been shared either by members of the Southern political structure or its rivals in the Northern political structure at the time. Basically, you're claiming you know better than both sides in the dispute.

So what? Do you actually disagree? Do you think that a country which permits slavery is a full democracy? If so, then you're in agreement with me. If not, well, why don't you SAY so?

Basically, the Confederacy considered itself a democracy, and considered the Union to be a democracy.

That's nice. But I am under no obligation to share in their beliefs as to what constitutes a democracy, nor do I think self-labeling is what's at issue. The issue of whether or not democracies go to war is not quite the same as whether or not countries which call themselves democracies, or even CONSIDER thenselves democracies, go to war.

Which makes it strongly appear that there's nothing about being "democratic" that keeps two countries from going to war with each other.

I suggest you adopt a definition of democracy for yourself, rather than use as a criteria merely whether or not a country considers itself a democracy. The latter method is useless, because almost any country can think of itself as democratic regardless of whether or not it is. You may find that you have a definition that differs from mine, you may find that, using your definition or even mine, you still conclude that democracies go to war. But it makes no sense to not adopt a definition based upon criteria other than what the country considers itself. And as far as I can tell, that's the only basis you've been working from so far.

Unless you're going to retroacctively define "democratic" to mean something other than what it demonstrably meant to everyone involved in the conflict at the time.

"Retroactive" isn't relevant here: my whole life has been retroactive with regards to the civil war. And there's absolutely nothing wrong with using a different definition than they had: if North Korea started calling itself democratic (oh wait, they do: they call themselves the "Democratic People's Republic of Korea"), are we somehow obliged to agree? Of course not. The only thing that would be dishonest is if I CHANGED my definition in order to make the argument fit as different cases are considered. But you have no evidence that I have done that, and any accusation of that towards me is baseless and insulting.

And, yes, I consider retroactive definitions tailored to prove the point under discussion to be cherry picking. It's the very definition of the "No True Scotsman" fallacy.

But cherry picking and "no true scotsman" fallacies aren't even the same thing. Cherry picking is where you select out specific elements of a set based upon some characteristic, and ignore elements without that characteristic, and then claim that they prove that this characteristic is the norm for the set. The "No true Scotsman" fallacy is where you claim that all elements of some set have a particular characteristic, and redefine any elements that do not have that characteristic as not being a member of that set. There's a difference between the two: one relies upon selective examination, one relies upon redefining. Cherry picking is not relevant to what I have been saying, which is why I was confused when you made the accusation. Your subsequent response indicates that you indeed misused the term. The "no true Scotsman" fallacy COULD be relevant here, but you have not shown that it IS relevant. All you've done so far is suggest that you have a problem with how I'm defining democracy, but that alone isn't enough to show that I've engaged in any fallacy.

Furthermore, I have not anywhere in this thread tried to argue that democracies never go to war with each other, so the fact that I don't consider a side in one conflict to be a true democracy really doesn't mean anything beyond my opinion of that side and that one conflict. The idea that I am changing my definitions to try to prove some point makes no sense unless you're making assumptions about my position which I have not expressed.

 

[Dave1001]

Here are other ideas I'd like to see tested against the data:
1. Countries where both have a middle class that's larger than their poverty class do not go to war with each other.
2. Countries where both have 3 successive years of economic growth do not go to war with each other.
3. Countries with free trade agreements with each other do not go to war with each other.
4. Countries where both have literacy rates over 90% do not go to war with each other.
5. Countries where both have a press that's free to criticize the leadership without fear of imprisonment, injunction or or state sponsored or condoned physical harm to not go to war with each other.
6. Countries with Universal Health Care do not go to war with each other.
7. Countries with universal health care that covers pyschiatric and psychological illness do not go to war with each other.

 

[bjb]

How about our wars with with Mexico and Spain? Wasn't the government in Mexico democratically elected?

 

[HeavyAaron]

Here are other ideas I'd like to see tested against the data:
1. Countries where both have a middle class that's larger than their poverty class do not go to war with each other.
2. Countries where both have 3 successive years of economic growth do not go to war with each other.
3. Countries with free trade agreements with each other do not go to war with each other.
4. Countries where both have literacy rates over 90% do not go to war with each other.
5. Countries where both have a press that's free to criticize the leadership without fear of imprisonment, injunction or or state sponsored or condoned physical harm to not go to war with each other.
6. Countries with Universal Health Care do not go to war with each other.
7. Countries with universal health care that covers pyschiatric and psychological illness do not go to war with each other.

1) middle and poverty classes are defined even less well than democracy

2) economic growth needs to be defined (increase in GDP, increase in GDP per capita, increase in GNP, increase in employment, increase in real capital, increase of stock market evaluation); define year (365 days, 12 months, 1 calender year)

3) totally free trade does not exist between any two nations that I'm aware of, therefore what degree of free trade do you mean?

4) define literate... literacy is not a binary function

5) define "free press"; define "criticize"

6) define "health care" in universal health care

7) define "health care" in universal health care beyond a single stipulation

That was fun.

Aaron

 

[JamesDillon]

1) middle and poverty classes are defined even less well than democracy

2) economic growth needs to be defined (increase in GDP, increase in GDP per capita, increase in GNP, increase in employment, increase in real capital, increase of stock market evaluation); define year (365 days, 12 months, 1 calender year)

3) totally free trade does not exist between any two nations that I'm aware of, therefore what degree of free trade do you mean?

4) define literate... literacy is not a binary function

5) define "free press"; define "criticize"

6) define "health care" in universal health care

7) define "health care" in universal health care beyond a single stipulation

That was fun.

Aaron

It may have been fun, but I don't think it was particularly helpful. Dave's post raised some interesting issues that I think could use some further academic research. I'd like to see the results of it myself.

You're right to point out, of course, that an academic exploration of these questions would need to pin down the meanings of the terms as objectively as possible, but I think that could be done pretty easily, and I don't think the ambiguity inherent in one-line descriptions of areas for further research makes Dave's post frivolous or useless, as you seem to.

 

[Leif Roar]

Here are other ideas I'd like to see tested against the data:
1. Countries where both have a middle class that's larger than their poverty class do not go to war with each other.

Germany versus France and UK in World War II?

2. Countries where both have 3 successive years of economic growth do not go to war with each other.

I don't have any statistics at hand, but I would be surprised if none of the belligerants in World War I matched this criteria. An alternative might be Japan versus USA in World War II.

3. Countries with free trade agreements with each other do not go to war with each other.

Isn't that rather like saying "countries with good diplomatic relations do not go to war with each other"? Any free trade agreement would probably have been withdrawn long before any conflict between two countries became a war.

4. Countries where both have literacy rates over 90% do not go to war with each other.

Lebanon/Israel would be awfully close -- literacy rate in Lebanon is 87.4% according to CIA World Fact Book.

5. Countries where both have a press that's free to criticize the leadership without fear of imprisonment, injunction or or state sponsored or condoned physical harm to not go to war with each other.

US Civil War? (Technically not countries, but close enough for government work.)

 

[Dave1001]

1) middle and poverty classes are defined even less well than democracy

2) economic growth needs to be defined (increase in GDP, increase in GDP per capita, increase in GNP, increase in employment, increase in real capital, increase of stock market evaluation); define year (365 days, 12 months, 1 calender year)

3) totally free trade does not exist between any two nations that I'm aware of, therefore what degree of free trade do you mean?

4) define literate... literacy is not a binary function

5) define "free press"; define "criticize"

6) define "health care" in universal health care

7) define "health care" in universal health care beyond a single stipulation

That was fun.

Aaron

For that matter define war!

 

[marksman]

How about our wars with with Mexico and Spain? Wasn't the government in Mexico democratically elected?

No. Mexico gained independence from Spain in 1822. One could argue that Mexico was a democracy betwee 1824 and the 1840's, during which time the country went through more than 20 "presidents", almost all through military coups.

By the time the Americans fought Mexico in the Spanish-American War (1846), it was run by Mariano Paredes y Arrillaga who had taken power in a coup and then he got ousted by a rapid succession of Presidents until the infamous Santa Ana took over in a coup of his own.

Mexico pretty much estabished a democracy (though its principle feature was kleptocracy) in 1910, after the Mexican Revolution. America has not declared war on Mexico since the 1840's, and has not been in a de facto war with them either.

 

[Jaggy Bunnet]

The "Nazis were democratically elected" bit is a long-held myth, to be perfectly honest.

They did participate in elections, but even at their strongest they only gained about 37% of the vote. In November, 1932, the "final" election only had them at 33%. It was von Hindenburg's appointment of Hitler as chancellor that really ushered in their rise to power; the SA essentially strong-armed the Reichstag into approving Hitler's "emergency powers" and the rest, as they say, is history.

Is there a requirement that a single party wins a majority of the votes for a country to be considered a democracy?

If so then the UK is out as Labour won the last election with 35.3%.

Also Wikipedia has the Nazis getting 43.9% in the last election rather than the 33% figure you quote above.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_election,_1933

 

[a_unique_person]

Lebanon/Israel.

 

[Cuddles]

3) totally free trade does not exist between any two nations that I'm aware of, therefore what degree of free trade do you mean?

He actually said "countries with a free trade agreement" which is not the same as free trade. No country allows free trade, but many have signed what they call "free trade agreements" to allow less restrictions. Of course, these would almost certainly be cancelled before going to war and so can't really be considered relevent to this debate.

 

[CapelDodger]

For that matter define war!

And if anyone can do that ...

Define civil war!

 

[CapelDodger]

Germany versus France and UK in World War II?

Very similar societies - capitalist, secular, subject to the law, democratic by their mutual standards, no slavery - but did women have the vote? I think not, ergo True Scotsmen were not involved.

As an example - and it's probably the best available - it demonstrates the inanity of that part of the thread-title between quote-marks.

(edited for sufficient reason)

 

[Cleon]

Is there a requirement that a single party wins a majority of the votes for a country to be considered a democracy?

No, but they have to be able to put together a government, which they cannot do with less than 50%. "Voted into power" means just that, and the Nazis didn't get it.

Also Wikipedia has the Nazis getting 43.9% in the last election rather than the 33% figure you quote above.

I was referring to the November, 1932 election, not the March, 1933 election. By the March election, Hitler had been named Chancellor and the SA and SS were "encouraging" the electorate, shall we say.

 

[Meadmaker]

Let's compare similar propositions. "There has never been a war between two dictatorships." Hmmm. I think I can find some counterexamples to that one.

There has never been a war between a democracy and a dictatorship. Hmmm. I'm sure I've read about those somewhere.

In the case of "there has never been a war between two democracies", there are plenty of possible counterexamples, and yet there is no clear cut, unquestionable example. Furthermore, statistics don't explain the answer, because since the rise of democratic governments, there have been lots of opportunities for war, but the democracies don't fight each other. They fight the dictatorships.

I think the real message is that free people rarely start wars. It tends to happen in only a couple of very limited circumstances. One occurs when the democracy has overwhelming force and can expect very limited casualties. (e.g. US vs. Iraq today) The other occurs when the democracy is attacked. (e.g. US vs. Japan in 1941)

It's not hard to figure out why, either. War sucks, and everyone knows it. The only time anyone would start one of the silly things would be when he has something personal to gain by it, and figured he and his friends weren't likely to get killed. That means a democracy would only start a war when there was already one going on anyway, as in they were attacked, or when they figured that someone else would fight it and the country as a whole would gain from it. Those situations are so rare that there aren't many wars started by democratic governments.

 

[Dave1001]

United States and Iraq in the early 21st century. Saddam held an election for president, which he was declared the winner of. So did the US in 2000, prior to the war, which Geoge W. Bush was declared the winner of.

 

[Dave1001]

Let's compare similar propositions. "There has never been a war between two dictatorships." Hmmm. I think I can find some counterexamples to that one.

There has never been a war between a democracy and a dictatorship. Hmmm. I'm sure I've read about those somewhere.

In the case of "there has never been a war between two democracies", there are plenty of possible counterexamples, and yet there is no clear cut, unquestionable example. Furthermore, statistics don't explain the answer, because since the rise of democratic governments, there have been lots of opportunities for war, but the democracies don't fight each other. They fight the dictatorships.

I think the real message is that free people rarely start wars. It tends to happen in only a couple of very limited circumstances. One occurs when the democracy has overwhelming force and can expect very limited casualties. (e.g. US vs. Iraq today) The other occurs when the democracy is attacked. (e.g. US vs. Japan in 1941)

It's not hard to figure out why, either. War sucks, and everyone knows it. The only time anyone would start one of the silly things would be when he has something personal to gain by it, and figured he and his friends weren't likely to get killed. That means a democracy would only start a war when there was already one going on anyway, as in they were attacked, or when they figured that someone else would fight it and the country as a whole would gain from it. Those situations are so rare that there aren't many wars started by democratic governments.

Good description of the cherry a lot of people want to pick.