When are we going to stop citing RJ Rummel?

LOGIC > EMPIRICISM

 

since this is mises.org:

 

Experience is always experience of past happenings. It refers to what has been and is no longer, to events sunk forever in the flux of time.

 

The awareness of regularity in the concatenation and sequence of many phenomena does not affect this reference of experience to something that occurred once in the past at a definite place and time under the circumstances prevailing there and then. The cognition of regularity too refers exclusively to past events. The most experience can teach us is: in all cases observed in the past there was an ascertainable regularity.

From time immemorial all men of all races and civilizations have taken it for granted that the regularity observed in the past will also prevail in the future. The category of causality and the idea that natural events will in the future follow the same pattern they showed in the past are fundamental principles of human thought as well as of human action. Our material civilization is the product of conduct guided by them. Any doubt concerning their validity within the sphere of past human action is dispelled by the results of technological designing. History teaches us irrefutably that our forefathers and we ourselves up to this very moment have acted wisely in adopting them. They are true in the sense that pragmatism attaches to the concept of truth. They work, or, more precisely, they have worked in the past.

Leaving aside the problem of causality with its metaphysical implications, we have to realize that the natural sciences are based entirely on the assumption that a regular conjunction of phenomena prevails in the realm they investigate. They do not search merely for frequent conjunction but for a regularity that prevailed without exception in all cases observed in the past and is expected to prevail in the same way in all cases to be observed in the future. Where they can discover only a frequent conjunction-as is often the case in biology, for example-they assume that it is solely the inadequacy of our methods of inquiry that prevents us temporarily from discovering strict regularity.

The two concepts of invariable and of frequent conjunction must not be confused. In referring to invariable conjunction people mean that no deviation from the regular pattern-the law-of conjunction has ever been observed and that they are certain, as far as men can be certain about anything, that no such deviation is possible and will ever happen. The best elucidation of the idea of inexorable regularity in the concatenation of natural phenomena is provided by the concept of miracles. A miraculous event is something that simply cannot happen in the normal course of world affairs as we know it, because its happening could not be accounted for by the laws of nature. If nonetheless the occurrence of such an event is reported, two different interpretations are provided, both of which, however, fully agree in taking for granted tile inexorability of the laws of nature. The devout say: "This could not happen in the normal course of affairs. It came to pass only because the Lord has the power to act without being restricted by the laws of nature. It is an event incomprehensible and inexplicable for the human mind, it is a mystery, a miracle." The rationalists say: "It could not happen and therefore it did not happen. The reporters were either liars or victims of a delusion." If the concept of laws of nature were to mean not inexorable regularity but merely frequent connection, the notion of miracles would never have been conceived. One would simply say: A is frequently followed by B, but in some instances this effect failed to appear.

Nobody says that stones thrown into the air at an angle of 45 degrees will frequently fall down to earth or that a human limb lost by an accident frequently does not grow again. All our thinking and all our actions are guided by the knowledge that in such cases we are not faced with frequent repetition of the same connection, but with regular repetition.

Ludwig von Mises, Theory and History

But seriously, this is a ridiculous argument.  Precious few Americans are victimized by their government and virtually none to the death unless you count the al Qaeda operative who openly declared war on America and thus was an enemy combatant. In fact, give me some examples of Americans murdered by their government this year. 

ok, since instead of responding to arguments in cogent fashion or defining your terms as we have asked you to do, you seem to want to explain to us why is was fair and good and righteous for the commander in chief to order that three american citizens be assassinated in direct violation of the constitution, let's hear it. Why was it right to execute anwar al-alwaki, samir khan, and abdulrahman al-awlaki? How come the constitution did not afford these three american citizens the right to due process? What threat did they pose, in order to justify the willful and deliberate assassination facilitated by the use of a flying killer robot?

higher order democracy

God, those goalposts not only have wheels, they've got a V-8 motor and overdrive transmission!

Clayton -

@ Centinel,

Check my scenario,

Jackson LaRose:

Italy defaults and attempts to re-assert their sovereignty.  Germany and France invade them.

Centinel:

I am waiting for you to match rhetoric and ideology with substantive action.

You might be waiting a while.  Just because you turned this,

Centinel:

Of course if anyone would like to provide a hypothetical scenario in which 2 or more of these nations would go to war, then have at it.

Into some machismo wager, doesn't mean I am confident enough, or have enough money lying around to engage in some enormous bet.  I could $1 if you're interested, but even so, the shadow EU government really begs the whole question of whether or not France, Germany or Italy can even be considered "sovereign" anymore.

 

Centinel:

@vive la insurrection

DPT is supported by logic and overwhelming empiricial evidence.

Logically:

[Snipped list of bare assertions that are anything but logical.]

Of course, when has logic swayed faith-based adherents to failed systems that are neither supported by logic or empirical evidence?

"Democracies have open borders which reduce uncertainty and increase familiarity between subject nations and peoples."

Tell that to the Californians with their Mexicans, the British with their Pakistanis, the French with their Algerians and Romani, the Germans with their Turks, the Italians with their Albanians, the Spanish with their Moroccans, the Australians with their goodness-knows-what, Torontans with their Somalis, the Dutch with their Arabs... need I go on?

"Democracies are free traders which reduces friction and increase mutual interests between subject nations."

Do they? Being a democracy sure didn't stop the good ol' US of A from passing the Smoot-Hawley tariff, nor the Cuban embargo, nor the North Korean embargo, nor did being monarchies stop the nations of the industrial era from trading with each other.

"Democracies have a common bond of respect for life, liberty and private property."

You mean when they are aborting, euthanizing (and I don't just mean in the Kevorkian sense, either), regulating, micromanaging and taxing their citizens at levels unprecedented in human history? You mean when getting through the airport in the United States requires individuals to go through measures that would have been considered excessive by the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany? You mean when government is consuming anywhere from 5-10 times as much of GDP as a percentage than it did in the time of the medieval era?

"Leaders within democracies are subject to sanction when engaging in reckless and costly wars not based on the preservation of life and liberty."

I really don't have to explain this one, do I?

"Democracies have decentralized elements of coercion that further reduces tensions, reckless policy  and uncertainty between subject nations."

Like Britain, with it's one-size-fits-all police force? Like the US, with it's alphabet soup of federal agencies? Like the EU, with it's "directives" and "human rights" courts?

"Democracies generally have much smaller military expenditures than statist regimes further reducing tensions, reckless policy  and uncertainty between subject nations."

Err... what?

Since you're in the business of empiricism...

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/timeline/0b7ea9b398bc3d1defb7852c62eb50e3.png

Well, I guess constitutional republics are officially the most war-like states.

Actually, the point I was making by citing these areas was that unrestricted immigration under social democratic regimes leads to civil disorder, demographic breakup and massive surges in crime. You yourself acknowledged the negative nature of Muslim immigration into Europe. This is more a problem with multiculturalism than with social democracy per se, but the "liberal" in liberal democracy tends to mean socially democratic and multicultural humanist.

In regards to tariffs; what evidence do you have that democratic regimes are freer traders than non-democratic ones? You still haven't answered my inquiry about the industrial-era monarchies, nor have you taken a look at what I said about the Smoot-Hawley tariff.

I wouldn't necessarily agree democratic regimes offer more liberty than non-democratic ones even compared to other modern regimes. This is especially murky when you consider different categories of freedom, where Singapore, Hong Kong and the United Arab Emirates are ahead of the US and Europe in many ways economically. Even in civil liberties, you can find examples of this; Turkey isn't nearly as restrictive of free speech as Canada, few nations are as bad as the US when it comes to airport security and the ridiculous copyright lawsuits that impede YouTube are rare to nonexistant in Russia and China. Like the Gottfried article I linked notes, though, with one freedom you might get one restriction, so most countries would probably fall somewhere arounda middling mush in the freedom rankings.

When speaking of airport security, I was not stating that the US is morally equivalent to the USSR or Nazi Germany, nor that such security measures make them so. I was simply pointing out that even these regimes, as far as I know, did not grope and irradiate their citizens at every airport. Security at private venues is a red herring, since we're discussing political policy. Neither New Zealand nor Australia nor most of Europe do such things to their people, and it's not like Europe isn't a big target for Islamic fanatics.

Bush was still reelected a year after the war began, and Blair's party still retained control over Britain until 2010. Furthermore, Obama and Cameron, respectively Bush and Blair/Brown's successors, have led their nations to war on far more flimsy pretexts than Bush did with Iraq. I could go back and cite the many Presidents who presided over Vietnam or go Pat Buchanan on you with Roosevelt, but I figure it'd be best to keep things current.

Also, despite being autocracies, I don't see much evidence that Angola, China, Syria, Turkmenistan or Venezuela (just to name a few) are going to be doing a Danzig Jig anytime soon. The wars under democratic regimes have been far more bloody and far more total than any in the Renaissance era; there, wars were fought largely between professional soldiers on open battlefields, rather than in the streets, villages and jungles characteristic of the 20th-21st century.

As for the chart; the point I was making was that numerous African and South American nations are about equal to European ones in terms of military spending as percentage of GDP, and that some "higher order" democracies, like France, Britain and to a much greater extent, the US have higher percentages than these nations. Part of this can be put down to the US effectively subsidizing European defense, but even if you spread the US's percentage out across all of the EU, you'd still probably get a darker shade in these nations than in Argentina or Zimbabwe.

"  In conclusion the USA has never attacked a liberal democracy in its history and it probably never will."

Right,

 

Just the Mexican government in 1846 

The Spanish government in 1898

The German empire in 1917

The Japanese government in in 1941

 

Need I go on? Honestly, what are you still doing here? If it were me the shame of being so blantantly wrong would cause me to detract from the scene. 

 

Let's see; critics of the war continued to hold their seats in the Reichstag in the German Empire. Critics of the war in Wilson's America were imprisoned, including Eugene Debs himself, Wilson's primary political opponent. Which sounds more like something you'd read about in, say, Liberia or Zimbabwe?

"No you dont need to go on if you believe that 1846 Mexico under the despot Santa Ana was a liberal democracy?!"

Santa Anna was thrown out. The war still continued under a constitutional government, meaning they had a chance to announce surrender/sue for peace yet they did not. Checkmate.

"or the Spanish oligarchy in 1898 in which the monarch forced a change in government between only two different political groups was a liberal democracy ?!"

A constitutional monarchy is possible and is under the definition of a liberal democracy. Your point of there being only two different political groups is moot because only two political parties are effective in U.S. politics and you considered the U.S. a liberal democracy. Checkmate.

"or that the German empire (military/monarchial dictatorship) of 1917 was a liberal democracy ?!"

Again, constitutional monarchy. The extension of executive power does not constitute whether a country fits in the category of a liberal democracy. It had a constitution, it had a legislative branch, it was a democracy. Checkmate.

"or that the military dictatorship of Japan in 1941 was a liberal democracy ??!!"

Again, the Japanese had a constitution since the Meiji Restoration. Having a emperor does not exclude you from being a liberal democracy. They had universal male sufferage after 1925. They had a diet (parliament). Checkmate.

Liberal Democracy

By the way, you have the United Kingdom and Canada under your little list of "higher order democracy" and the UK is a constitutional monarchy and Canada itself is still under British rule so I do not want to hear any nonsense about monarchs. 

Concerning your 1000 dollar bet. I do not have 1000 dollars sitting around to bet with and if I did, I would not trust you or anyone you trust to follow through with it because you have obviously shown lying and subterfuge does not affect you. 

Plus for every time the US has actually gone to war with a democracy you can probably find a dozen examples where the US subverted an existing democracy, or helped check the rise of democratic movements in a country in favour of right-wing authoritarians. In the Cold War the US pretty much acted as a fireman putting out sparks of government more responsible to the locals throughout the 3rd world. It is historically by far the most hostile to democracy of any power.

Andrew Cain, I think it's clear to us now that Centinel's implicit definition of "higher-order democracy" is "a democracy that is under the hegemony of the United States".

Marko:

Plus for every time the US has actually gone to war with a democracy you can probably find a dozen examples where the US subverted an existing democracy, or helped check the rise of democratic movements in a country in favour of right-wing authoritarians. In the Cold War the US pretty much acted as a fireman putting out sparks of government more responsible to the locals throughout the 3rd world. It is historically by far the most hostile to democracy of any power.

Ah, but those democracies (e.g. Iran in 1953, Guatemala in 1954, Chile in 1973) aren't "higher-order democracies"! Presumably this is because they weren't yet under the hegemony of the United States!

I wrote out this long replay then for some reason my shift button got stuck and the page went backward. So I will make it short and sweet.

Spain was a constitutional monarchy

Japan pass the Universal Suffrage act in 1925

Your point on Germany is a point about the effectiveness of a liberal democracy, not on its existence. 

I have not misconstrued the definition of liberal democracy. If I have, then prove it. Otherwise I will not be lectured by someone who only considers successful liberal democracies actual liberal democracies while disregarding the ineffective liberal democraies as not being liberal democraies. 

Your idiocy over betting 1000 dollars over how cool your style of government is does not validate its "coolness."  I do not have 1000 dollars lying around (something you apparently do not understand) and even if I did, I value investing more then pissing away money on a foolish Nostradomus-type bet. 

"Andrew Cain, I think it's clear to us now that Centinel's implicit definition of "higher-order democracy" is "a democracy that is under the hegemony of the United States"."

No it is a democracy that does not exist except in his mind. If I were to bring up some point about free/fair elections in the U.S., he would change the definition or chop the country off the list. He propounds an ideology that will gradually get more and more out of touch with the reality around him which will cause him to A.) change his mind B.) desperately cling to a delusion. I am guessing B. 

Of course it is not ever possible to square the alleged fact that democracies are more hostile to non-democracy and more friendly to democracy with the fact that United States backed anti-democrats against imperfect democrats.

Surely if it is inherently friendly to democracies, the US should nonetheless prefer "low-order democracy" (whatever that is) over outright authoritarianism? We are best buddies for ever with super-duper democracies, but we will squash your proto-democracy in favor of your tin pot dictator and arm your right-wing death squads against your semi-democrats? What the hell is that?

Yes, the US helped overthrow relatively sinless democrats like Mosaddegh and Lumumba, but in addition to that it also became upset over Khomeini overthrowing Reza Pahlavi and backed Somoza and the Contras against the Sandinistas. The Sandinistas were clearly not perfect democratizers, but they were far more democratic than the Somozas or the Contras who the US backed against them. And despite the demonization Khomeinists were far more into democracy than Pahlavi (who was not into it at all) ever was. If it was inherently friendly to democracy the US should have welcomed the 1979 revolutions in Nicaragua and Iran. It didn't.

I'm sorry, you must have mistaken me for someone who thinks you're worth talking to.

"It is not your perogative to define 'liberal democracy' for democratic peace theorists (DPT) any more than a Marxist can define for you what constitutes a capitalist society."

I have presented the definition of a liberal democracy in my previous post. This nonsense that only a DPT can define a liberal democracy is pretty childish especially when you change it to fit your argument. Define or be defined.

Concerning your comment on Japan, I never stated that women were allowed to vote in 1925. If you would actually read my post I said universal male suffrage. Women were not allowed to vote in the US until the 1920's. Blacks did not get fair elections until the 60's and today ex-felons are not allowed to vote. If your claim is that a liberal democracy allows free and fair voting of the people then you should knock some countries off that list of yours specifically the US

On the topic of Spain, if the US, assuming you still actually consider it a liberal democracy, were to institute term limits then would it stop being a liberal democracy?

Concerning your point of Germany, you are making a point about the expansion of executive power. A simple question, were people allowed to vote and was there a constitution? That is all that matters. After that it is a matter of how effective it is, the principle is already there.

And I see my bet comment still has not gotten through. Honestly, how surprising!

Since it is your opinion that liberal democracies are not peaceful with each other then I challenge you to cite an objective and realistic hypothetical case study in which ANY of these  higher order democracies might engage in conflict against each other:

 

Funny, it looks like this is less a list of "liberal democracies" and more a list of "countries that are unlikely to, in their current state, go to war". Notably, Italy and Greece are both missing.

But okay, I'll shoot.

Belgium defaults on its debts and collapses. France and/or Germany occupies Belgium. War.

OR

Spain is taken over by angry communists (either through revolution or election). Spain doesn't pay its debts. France attacks. War.

 

That was awfully easy. Now, allow me to make a counter theory, called the "Higher Order Authoritarian Theory". Give me a scenario in which the following countries will find themselves at war:

 

People's Republic of China

Russian Federation

Kyrgyzstan

Cuba

Peru

Kazakhstan

Turkmenistan

Mongolia

North Korea.

 

Therefore, fascist nations are less likely to go to war. Problem RJ Rummel?

"It is not my list. 

It comes from a private civil 3rd party NGO that has been doing this for over 70 years. 

Freedom House. 

Here is the link regarding the methodology used by the researchers at Freedom.org.

Its all there dude, if you have a problem with it let me know.  Btw, they are not affliated with any democratic peace theorists.

If you think you are a better judge of what constitutes a liberal democracy, then have at it and provide your own objective data, methodology and results."

 

You are the one advocating it, so you must know something about it and on some level agree with it. Is this too much to assume? 

 

"How can anyone 'not have the time' to be guaranteed to double their principle and double their interest income on an investment of $1000 in ten years?!"

You are assuming that in 10 years it will still be worth the actual 1000 in purchasing power. ZOMG EconOMICZ!

"And of course, I dont trust you either.  Thats why YOU find a reputable 3rd party to underwrite the wager.  And seriously dude, you dont have $1000 bucks ? "

No I do not have 1000 bucks. I am a graduate student. 

"Aren't you anarchists suppose to understand market mechanisms and how the government manipulates these mechanisms ??"

I am a historian with an interest in economics. I do not play the market. 

"If your dogma is sound, shouldn't  you be able to translate all of this 'logic' into action ?  It seems like every anarchist gets a paycheck that has 'government' or public 'university' printed on it somewhere."

Yes, but action to what end. We do not all have the same exact end. My eudiamonia is a intellectual life, it does not have to be monetarily prosperous. 

"Hell, didn't you buy gold ?"

Not right now. It is too pricey for me. I am thinking about trying silver though.

"Why aren't you buying depressed properties in Detroit for a song and dance, fixing them up and renting them out ?"
 

I do not live near Detroit, nor would I invest in a market that is still being inflated. 

"At least buy a cabin somewhere up in the mountains and stock it up with ammo, water and beef jerky  as insurance.  If nothing happens, at least you got a cool place to camp out with the kids"
 

Well I do like Alaska. 

How can anyone 'not have the time' to be guaranteed to double their principle and double their interest income on an investment of $1000 in ten years?!

how can anyone be too dimwitted to understand that tying up a stack for 10 years is an idiotic investment? Admit it, youre ben bernanke's son and you know dad is going to inflate your college debt away along with any other idiot gambles you lost.

And of course, I dont trust you either.  Thats why YOU find a reputable 3rd party to underwrite the wager.  And seriously dude, you dont have $1000 bucks ?

Here we go! Seriously? You found a person on mises.org forums who doesnt have $1000 available for gambling? And a college student no less? I am sure you have money falling out of your ass (:eye roll:) especially considering your barely-literate screeds against "inferior" races and emotional appeals to stalin.

Aren't you anarchists suppose to understand market mechanisms and how the government manipulates these mechanisms ??

well enough to get better roi than your bet, absolutely. In fact, you are an idiot for trying to tie up $1000 for 10 years. Just pointing that out.

If your dogma is sound, shouldn't  you be able to translate all of this 'logic' into action ?  It seems like every anarchist gets a paycheck that has 'government' or public 'university' printed on it somewhere.

lol what do you do for living, dig ditches? We know it doesnt require advanced cognitive skills, so fess up.

Hell, didn't you buy gold ?

didnt you? Or are you a "dollar theorist" too?

Why aren't you buying depressed properties in Detroit for a song and dance, fixing them up and renting them out ? At least buy a cabin somewhere up in the mountains and stock it up with ammo, water and beef jerky  as insurance.  If nothing happens, at least you got a cool place to camp out with the kids

you have so many good ideas for how to spend other people's money, but I bet when you spend other people's money its on modern warfare sequels and 2 liter bottles of surge (or whatever neocons drink these days).

Centinel:

It is not my list.

It comes from a private civil 3rd party NGO that has been doing this for over 70 years.

Freedom House.

Here is the link regarding the methodology used by the researchers at Freedom.org [sic - it's FreedomHouse.org].

Its all there dude, if you have a problem with it let me know.  Btw, they are not affliated with any democratic peace theorists.

That's its methodology for its Freedom of the Press report. It's not its methodology for its Freedom in the World report. Are you using Freedom House's methodology for its Freedom of the Press report as your methodology for determining "higher-order democracies"? That is, is freedom of the press, or freedom of expression, your sole criteria there?

Here are the checklist questions for Freedom House's 2010 Freedon in the World report. I'll simply note that I'd answer many, if not most, of those questions differently from Freedom House regarding the United States and other countries in the Western world.

However, it is unlikely that your fantasy will occur because Greece has basically defaulted and despite the fact that they are not a higher order democracy like Belguim, they were not attacked, nor did France or Germany even contemplate the mobilization of their armed forces. 

In fact, you would be hard pressed to find any objective, rational and independent thinking source that would support your fantasy of war between Spain, Belguim, France or Germany. But if you are really confident then you should be chomping at the bit to earn double the interest and your principle on a $1000 bet.  Since your an anarchist I will have to explain that to you -- you will be earning interest income on $2000 while only putting up $1000 of your own money + you will double the principle,  ANd the kicker is that this is guaranteed!  Absolutely no risk cuz you are confident that liberal democracies fight wars against each other.

 

(A) "Greece isn't a higher order democracy because we say so!"

(B) "France and Germany haven't mobilized their forces, therefore it CANNOT happen!"

(C) Certainly. I agree to your bet. At about the time I die, (since you didn't outline any specific time when it expires) I will pay you $1000 had there been no war before the aforementioned countries.

However, you seemed to have missed the slight contradication in your fantasy regarding imminent war in Spain and Belgium -- you stated that Belguim collapses which would imply anarchism, no longer a liberal democracy.   Also, you stated that Spain becomes communist, no longer a liberal democracy.

 

"collapse = anarchism"

 

"Communism isn't Democracy"

Way to move the goalposts there, pal. If a Communist government is DEMOCRATICALLY elected, it is no longer a higher order democracy? I was unaware that specific political parties had to win elections for a country to be considered democratic.

 

what is  your  criteria for a higher order authoritarian regime?   And where are the data, methodology and results ?  Has your list been peer reviewed?  Has it passed any academic rigor ?

Maybe I am a little bias but It appears that your list is highly arbitrary and subjective and dishonestly designed to buttress a weak argument.

In contrast, my list regarding higher order democracies comes from a  private civil 3rd party source who has been in the business for over 70 years identifying higher order liberal democracies (Freedom House) who has conducted extensive peer reviewed research and the methodology and results  is open for all to examine.   If you have a  problem with the methodology or the analysis and you believe that you are a better authority on liberal democracy, provide your argument.\

 

HA HA HA

 

"extensive peer reviewed research"

 

I can imagine a peasant in Soviet Ukraine having a similar argument with an NKVD political officer. "But Comrade, Communism doesn't work! We're starving and just three days ago you dragged away an innocent person to shoot!"

"Pfah!" says the political officer, "you just can't see the big picture! Our great government has engaged in experimentation and used peer review to discover that Communism actually works! If you can provide an alternative source to this, please do so!"

Obviously the peasant can't provide an alternative source that the NKVD officer will find credible since he will doubletalk his way into claiming it is invalid. Likewise, many people in this thread have already handled this, so I don't think I need to work hard at it.

Now, back to the main topic, you STILL haven't found a credible situation in which the Higher Order Authoritarian Nations will find themselves in a state of war. Lets not bandy words here; its no less obviously biased than your silly theory. So, when you give me a credible scenario provided by a credible source in which those countries will wage war in the modern age, please do so. Until then, I can't take up your bet.

Note that Spain's liberal democracy is overrun by communists before war.

 

Again, you selectively quoted that, ignoring the "BY ELECTION" part. But okay. It could occur WITHOUT a significant change in government, if the aforementioned countries pulled an Iceland and provoked invasion by their debtors. Not that farfetched, at least not as farfetched as that recession and economic collapse that these "credible" sources didn't predict in the slightest.