Meadmaker said:
But Napoleon could decide whether or not to start a war. He didn't have to ask permission from the legislature. The result was a lot of wars.
That would be a valid point,
if Dave1001's definition of democracy included the right to vote, but it didn't. Don't ask me why. It was his definition.
Meadmaker said:
The sense of self preservation among the voters whose families would ahve to fight the wars can control an angry mob in that case.)
America chose to go to war almost every thirty years. War of 1812, a variety of American Indian Wars, Civil War, Spanish American War, Mexican American War, WWI, WWII, Korea, Viet Nam, Gulf War I, Gulf War II.
In many of those wars, America was the aggressor. In many of those where America was not the aggressor, it was clear that the US could avoid further conflict if it wanted. America, which I think we can all agree is a democracy, calls for war all of the time.
I think the most reasonable conclusion is that a nation's political system is not a strong predictive factor as to whether a nation is likely or unlikely to go to war.
gumboot said:
I don't see how you can possibly exclude voting from any definition of "democracy".
Why are you asking me? It was dave1001's definition.
Actually, I personally would not include the right to "disproportionately accumulate wealth" as necessary for the right to free expression -I mentioned it simply to acknowledge that my position might be controversial. The other rights I listed I consider to be necessary to have free expression. I do think you need some individual property ownership rights in order to have functional free expression, but not to the point where individuals can have property disproportionate to the median for an individual. I hope this helps as a clarification of my view on this.
A little. So was Napoleonic France free?
