Which is why there are essentially no democracies, but constitution governed republics instead. Yes elect whoever, but in a modern republic they are constrained by legislature, courts.
@@Nill757 There are democratic legislatures. That's what a democracy is. It's a democratically elected representative legislature. The plan is that other constitutional forces don't set outt to constrain or warp the development of representative statutes. But representation is real, at least in my country.
@@youbigtubership I the “legislature” can’t make laws that are enforced by the courts, and place some limits on the chief executive, then it’s just a carnival show.
Under Trump or any Republican how many wars were started ? And then tell me how many wars ended under Republican rule . Like I said you can't handle the truth
Liberals who believe that #democracy is anything other than a #tyranny of the #majority suffer from the delusion that simply having the power to elicit a consensus is in the best interest of humanity, or, at least the constituency. The majority is like a hammer that views all policy decisions as nails. Hence, the individual and the minority are rendered destitute of #consent. That's a condition the founders abhorred.
A democracy can simply just vote on matter differently than another democracy and boom you got a struggle. Democracy just means the system of deciding not being in good terms with each other. We even see it in modern day. Hungary decides differently and people start denying them being a democracy.
That's highly debatable. Germany in 1914 certainly looked like a democracy. The Reichstag was elected by universal manhood suffrage. It had the sole power to make laws and, in practice, elected the Chancellor. It controlled the defense budget and had sole power to declare war. And yet it went to war against France, Britain, Italy, and ultimately the United States. The democratic-peace theorists have never been able to come up with a particularly satisfying explanation for why Germany in 1914 was not a democracy. The best they have come up with is, well, it was a democracy internally, but its foreign policy was controlled by the army or something. That doesn't really work, given everything we know about the powers of the Reichstag and of the Chancellor. And, of course, republican city-states with elected governments fought each other all the time in antiquity through the middle ages, and the early modern period.
@@redrackham6812 Having a "chancellor" with absolute power is per definition, no longer a democracy. It went from being kind of a democracy to not being one at all. And the fact that they had no "constitutional law"(thats not the right term, but english is my second language) that could not be changed that protected it from changing governing structure means they were able to instantley turn it into a 1 party state / dictatorship and at that point it is no longer a democracy but more like current age china. And they went to war after that kind of change had happened, not while it was a democracy. Thats why countries that do not have democratic "constitutional law" to ensure the governing form of the county ,can change.
What utter bull****. War between democratic countries is as old as democracy itself! Who created democracy? That would be the ancient Greeks, the very culture we get the word democracy from. What is one of the other earliest examples of democracy in the world? The Republic of Rome. Ever heard of the Roman-Greek wars?
Put aside the absolutism, looking for possible exceptions to the notion. Vast majority of wars are not started by the democratic states. If one wants more peace, if not absolute peace, then on that basis the republics are the best bet.
I would imagine that your "out" in your assertion is defining what an "actual" democracy is. When the CSA seceded from the USA in 1861, the USA waged war against the American South to bring it back into the "Union" by force. Both the USA and CSA were representative "democracies". And don't mention slavery, as that was not the cause of the war. Both Lincoln and Grant were adamant on that point. And slavery also existed in the North at that time.
There are plenty democracies that have been toppled (generally by the USA) by other democracies. Mainly because they ha ld policies the other democracy didn't like.
True, and most Americans did not vote for these wars initiated by the CIA formed by the unconstitutional securities act of 1947. The presidential power to initiate wars without congressional approval is also unconstitutional. The people in many democracies lost control , accountability, and agency of the military industrial complex a long time ago as Eisenhower and Kennedy lamented back in those days.
Democracies are more controllable. Rich countries have an easier time bribing parlamentary systems as well as putting money into Free press to spin the lies they want as well as putting the president's they want into power. There is no better way to control the world and maintain the status quo than democracies.
You don't have to go to war to undermine your neighboring liberal democracies. The French, English, Germans, etc do it all the time. Peace s just warfare without bloodshed.
It's difficult to find a "liberal democracy". Perhaps Switzerland, Greece and Israel would qualify. To my admittedly limited knowledge the U.S., France, Germany, Central African Republic,Republic of Korea, Mexico, Czeck Republic, Slovak Republic, Dominican Republic, Republic of South Africa. People's Republic of China and Republic of China are all republics by their own appellations or constitutions. The Netherlands, Spain, Portugal, Belgium, Great Britain, Denmark, Norway, Japan and Sweden are constitutional monarchies. I'm ignorant about western Asia, Poland, Hungary, Haiti, Romania, Bulgaria, Albania, Macedonia, Ukraine the Baltic States, Finland and the rest of the world.
@@tomfiedler2390 Israel is certainly not a Liberal Democracy. Mr. Mearshiemer has an excellent lecture series dedicated to disproving this notion. Israel cannot simultaneously be a liberal democracy and a jewish state.
Syblings will fight. When the people who pay life, limb, and family chose whether to fight or be peaceful, instead of the elite class who lose nothing, the people might chose peace more often. If the leaders, and profiteers had to pay on the front lines, I suspect peace would be the norm more often.
The political and economic elite are formed by the same policies created by social Democrat forces to so called “protect small businesses” or steal, I mean “contribute to society”
And yet there is literally no example of a liberal democracy declaring war on another liberal democracy. Not one. So who are the "realists" at the end of the day? You are , at the end of the day, a theorist living in the midst of the collapse of the last supporting evidence you would need to support your theory. It's embarrassing.
"Liberal democracy" is a challenging semantic. There's no actual standard definition for "liberal". "Fuzzy" is a word that comes to mind. Any example one could choose would be challenged by "but that/those nation(s) is/are not a real liberal democracy(ies); it's/they're really a [fill in the blank]".
The Founders would disagree, Jefferson said "A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty nine."
Anyone can be voted in. Even dictators and warmongers.
Which is why there are essentially no democracies, but constitution governed republics instead. Yes elect whoever, but in a modern republic they are constrained by legislature, courts.
@@Nill757 There are democratic legislatures. That's what a democracy is. It's a democratically elected representative legislature. The plan is that other constitutional forces don't set outt to constrain or warp the development of representative statutes. But representation is real, at least in my country.
@@youbigtubership I the “legislature” can’t make laws that are enforced by the courts, and place some limits on the chief executive, then it’s just a carnival show.
@@Nill757 th-cam.com/video/S1_Ys6UchLo/w-d-xo.htmlsi=yU94bxyUsrsT9BZF
Under Trump or any Republican how many wars were started ? And then tell me how many wars ended under Republican rule . Like I said you can't handle the truth
All those in Power utilize Power to control their enemies. They're blinded by Power,
Liberals who believe that #democracy is anything other than a #tyranny of the #majority suffer from the delusion that simply having the power to elicit a consensus is in the best interest of humanity, or, at least the constituency. The majority is like a hammer that views all policy decisions as nails. Hence, the individual and the minority are rendered destitute of #consent. That's a condition the founders abhorred.
A democracy can simply just vote on matter differently than another democracy and boom you got a struggle. Democracy just means the system of deciding not being in good terms with each other. We even see it in modern day. Hungary decides differently and people start denying them being a democracy.
The United States is a People's Republic under God
That would make sense, however not a single actual democracy has started a war with another actual democracy so far in history.
That's highly debatable. Germany in 1914 certainly looked like a democracy. The Reichstag was elected by universal manhood suffrage. It had the sole power to make laws and, in practice, elected the Chancellor. It controlled the defense budget and had sole power to declare war. And yet it went to war against France, Britain, Italy, and ultimately the United States. The democratic-peace theorists have never been able to come up with a particularly satisfying explanation for why Germany in 1914 was not a democracy. The best they have come up with is, well, it was a democracy internally, but its foreign policy was controlled by the army or something. That doesn't really work, given everything we know about the powers of the Reichstag and of the Chancellor.
And, of course, republican city-states with elected governments fought each other all the time in antiquity through the middle ages, and the early modern period.
@@redrackham6812 Having a "chancellor" with absolute power is per definition, no longer a democracy. It went from being kind of a democracy to not being one at all. And the fact that they had no "constitutional law"(thats not the right term, but english is my second language) that could not be changed that protected it from changing governing structure means they were able to instantley turn it into a 1 party state / dictatorship and at that point it is no longer a democracy but more like current age china. And they went to war after that kind of change had happened, not while it was a democracy. Thats why countries that do not have democratic "constitutional law" to ensure the governing form of the county ,can change.
What utter bull****. War between democratic countries is as old as democracy itself!
Who created democracy? That would be the ancient Greeks, the very culture we get the word democracy from.
What is one of the other earliest examples of democracy in the world? The Republic of Rome.
Ever heard of the Roman-Greek wars?
Put aside the absolutism, looking for possible exceptions to the notion. Vast majority of wars are not started by the democratic states. If one wants more peace, if not absolute peace, then on that basis the republics are the best bet.
I would imagine that your "out" in your assertion is defining what an "actual" democracy is. When the CSA seceded from the USA in 1861, the USA waged war against the American South to bring it back into the "Union" by force. Both the USA and CSA were representative "democracies". And don't mention slavery, as that was not the cause of the war. Both Lincoln and Grant were adamant on that point. And slavery also existed in the North at that time.
Of course not according to Hobbes.
Very true.
There are plenty democracies that have been toppled (generally by the USA) by other democracies. Mainly because they ha ld policies the other democracy didn't like.
True, and most Americans did not vote for these wars initiated by the CIA formed by the unconstitutional securities act of 1947. The presidential power to initiate wars without congressional approval is also unconstitutional. The people in many democracies lost control , accountability, and agency of the military industrial complex a long time ago as Eisenhower and Kennedy lamented back in those days.
The American Revolution was one example and Civil Wars in 17th century England and in the US 19th century.
Are you citing these as examples of "democracies" fighting each other? If so you are correct.
Not most of the time. Most of the time dictatorships are aggressors.
The invasion of Iraq? Two democracies invaded a dictatorship that for quite sometime want doing anything
Democracies are more controllable. Rich countries have an easier time bribing parlamentary systems as well as putting money into Free press to spin the lies they want as well as putting the president's they want into power.
There is no better way to control the world and maintain the status quo than democracies.
Who listens to Mearsheimer for goodness sake? It’s the 21st century.
Give an example where liberal democracies have gone to war against each other.
You don't have to go to war to undermine your neighboring liberal democracies. The French, English, Germans, etc do it all the time. Peace s just warfare without bloodshed.
Well the US overthrew at least 4 democracies I can think of
It's difficult to find a "liberal democracy". Perhaps Switzerland, Greece and Israel would qualify. To my admittedly limited knowledge the U.S., France, Germany, Central African Republic,Republic of Korea, Mexico, Czeck Republic, Slovak Republic, Dominican Republic, Republic of South Africa. People's Republic of China and Republic of China are all republics by their own appellations or constitutions. The Netherlands, Spain, Portugal, Belgium, Great Britain, Denmark, Norway, Japan and Sweden are constitutional monarchies. I'm ignorant about western Asia, Poland, Hungary, Haiti, Romania, Bulgaria, Albania, Macedonia, Ukraine the Baltic States, Finland and the rest of the world.
@@tomfiedler2390 Israel is certainly not a Liberal Democracy. Mr. Mearshiemer has an excellent lecture series dedicated to disproving this notion. Israel cannot simultaneously be a liberal democracy and a jewish state.
Yeah, but starting a war is hard in most cases if the voters are against it. So in Europe its been pretty peaceful compared to 1850-1950.
Syblings will fight. When the people who pay life, limb, and family chose whether to fight or be peaceful, instead of the elite class who lose nothing, the people might chose peace more often. If the leaders, and profiteers had to pay on the front lines, I suspect peace would be the norm more often.
The political and economic elite are formed by the same policies created by social Democrat forces to so called “protect small businesses” or steal, I mean “contribute to society”
Drivel. The truth can be found somewhere between.
The guy hasn’t read history it seems. Nagorno-Karabakh are democracies and World Wars were fought between democracies.
He’s talking about what liberals think, not himself, he’s a realist.
I replied but you can't handle the truth by not letting me post
And yet there is literally no example of a liberal democracy declaring war on another liberal democracy. Not one. So who are the "realists" at the end of the day? You are , at the end of the day, a theorist living in the midst of the collapse of the last supporting evidence you would need to support your theory. It's embarrassing.
"Liberal democracy" is a challenging semantic. There's no actual standard definition for "liberal". "Fuzzy" is a word that comes to mind. Any example one could choose would be challenged by "but that/those nation(s) is/are not a real liberal democracy(ies); it's/they're really a [fill in the blank]".
This is a vast qualitative difference. mearsheimer is once again equivocating technicalities to justify atrocity.
You jump to undescribed straw-men in jumping to conclusions. He never justifies atrocities; merely explains motives.
This guy's jumping the gun. Advocating for democracy is not a bad thing.
The Founders would disagree, Jefferson said "A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty nine."
This guys doesn't know what he's talking about.