User talk:Ultramarine/Archive 3

About talking...

I apologize for ending our conversation abruptly almost two weeks ago, but my time on wikipedia is quite limited nowadays. I still believe we should talk via email, however - if for no other reason, at least because I'm interested in discussing politics and personal opinion with you, and wikipedia userspace is not an appropriate location for that sort of thing. -- Nikodemos 18:56, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

P.S. I've created this userbox for my own use; if you're into userboxes, I thought you might want to know about it. -- Nikodemos 19:00, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, your approval of Rummel's views is quite evident in your edits. One of my biggest objections to Rummel is that he puts such overwhelming emphasis on democide while seemingly ignoring all other causes of human suffering. Even by his own democide statistics (which, you must admit, are the highest of any historian), only about 5-6% of the people who lived in the 20th century were killed by their governments. Not exactly the horrifying carnage that Rummel makes it out to be. From my utilitarian standpoint, I cannot help but point out that eliminating malaria, for instance, would be much more important than eliminating democide. On another note, I am not at all convinced by all the statistics you have put forward to support your views. You seem to be steadfast in your support for liberal democracy and "capitalism" (though I would advise you to be cautious in using the term, because you certainly do not approve of the views of libertarians and anarcho-capitalists who tend to be the ones calling for "more capitalism", and your version of capitalism isn't necessarily incompatible with socialist ideologies like social democracy either). You appear to base your views in statistical evidence showing that liberal democracy and capitalism have been beneficial throughout the 20th century. But how can you derive absolute, ahistorical conclusions from the study of a century alone (and a very small number of more-or-less democratic countries in previous centuries)? What makes you believe that liberal democracy and capitalism will continue to be beneficial, or that it is impossible to devise better systems? I am asking this because I believe you are a very intelligent individual in danger of falling into dogmatism (dogmatism can be defined as the belief that "X will always be good everywhere, and nothing ever needs to be changed about it"). And I think that would be a pity. In our past dealings, you also appeared to be unnecessarily hostile, and this resulted in very lengthy and very tiring disputes between us that could have been avoided. I want to talk to you because I believe dialogue leads to understanding, and understanding leads to cooperation. Call it an individual version of the democratic peace theory. -- Nikodemos 20:45, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

There is an obvious problem with requesting that every major social change be based on policies that have been tried before and proven successful: Everything must have a beginning. Granted, it is perfectly reasonable to ask that revolutions should only be used as dramatic continuations of previously small reforms that have proven to be beneficial, but any ideology could give examples of beneficial reforms that its ideas have supposedly inspired.

By the way, I agree that the American Revolution ultimately created a better society, but only in the long term. The immediate effect of the revolution was to drastically reduce international trade for the American colonies, which lowered the overall standard of living of the Americans in the short term. Most revolutions will in fact be detrimental in the short term, if only because they upset existing economic relations and usually destroy quite a lot of infrastructure. Most revolutions, the American one included, tend to produce a lot of bloodshed and summary executions of counter-revolutionaries in the short term. Thus, revolutions that did not survive into the long term cannot be fairly judged one way or the other.

I am sure you have noticed that I often defend political POV's that I do not support, or even POV's that I strongly oppose. This is due to my belief that diversity and the willingness to experiment are vital to progress. I believe it would be beneficial if there was at least one of every possible type of society in existence at any given time. I am concerned that, in spreading all over the world and eliminating arguably inferior forms of government, liberal democracy is entrenching itself as a status quo that will be extremely difficult to alter (and therefore extremely difficult to improve) in the future. This is made worse by the apparent tendency of old liberal democracies to become less liberal and less democratic in recent years (witness how European governments, for instance, are able to blatantly ignore the wishes of their populations with regard to the War in Iraq or European integration; witness also the erosion of civil rights in the USA since 2001).

The incidence of malaria may be irrelevant in countries that are away from the tropics, but so is the incidence of democide in countries that are not prone to it (e.g. you cannot compare the level of happiness in, say, France and Australia by comparing their current levels of democide). As democide fades into history (which it has arguably been doing for the past 40 years), it becomes ever more irrelevant as a measure of present happiness.

Regarding poor nations saving themselves, it is no secret that the Earth currently does not have enough resources to support a population of 6 billion living by Western standards. Perhaps new resources could be found, or existing ones could be used more efficiently, but even so, the level of improvement necessary to allow everyone to live by Western standards is very unlikely to happen. It is a great stretch to argue that what worked for Europe in the past will work everywhere in the future. I believe that 3rd world development will level off long before it reaches Western levels.

P.S. I have begun experimenting with a new strategy of dispute resolution with you, as you may notice in the Black Book of Communism article. In the past, you have given me an incentive not to make concessions to you by typically demanding more and more after every attempted compromise on my part. This made for enourmously lengthy edit conflicts. My new strategy consists of making what I consider to be significant concessions to you in the early stages of a conflict, in exchange for you demanding no more. I call it efficient use of resources. Lengthy edit wars tend to get us right back where we started, and are a complete waste of time and effort for the both of us. You may have noticed that I will not simply go away from any article (though I do take breaks, sometimes long ones). I have also noticed that you will not go away either. Thus the most efficient use of our resources is to reach a static balance (consensus), rather than a dynamic balance (continual edits and reversions) which requires constant effort. In the past you do not seem to have appreciated the value of compromise as a time-saver. That should come with experience, and I believe you have enough experience now. I hope my new strategy works, so I don't have to go back to my older one. I also hope we can be allies rather than enemies on several articles. -- Nikodemos 07:10, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

P.P.S. My new compromise strategy also rests on the assumption that you will not attempt to copy old text from one article to another. At least not as long as the second article is on my watchlist. In addition, I understand your wish to promote liberal democracy, and it seems that right now you are spending your energies ineffectively by attacking ideas which have been used in support of liberal democracy at least as much as against it (e.g. the LTV). Due to your interest in history, you also appear to have a tendency to beat dead horses. Perhaps you should instead concentrate on live ones. You are a realist, naturally, and you clearly realize that this suggestion is not entirely disinterested on my part. Of course it isn't. But I hope you will also realize that it is in your interest at least as much as mine. (see, if you had agreed to talk by email, I wouldn't have to be so cryptic) -- Nikodemos 17:58, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Do you see Marxism about to rise to power anywhere? Regardless of how strong it was in the past, and how much suffering it did or did not cause, it presents no danger to capitalism or liberal democracy now or in the forseeable future. That is why you are wasting your time in attacking it. Besides, not all Marxism is totalitarian or even communist. In mathematical terms, there is a big difference between A -> B and A <-> B. Even if Marxism -> Soviet Union & co. (which is what you believe, though I strongly disagree), that does not mean that Marxism <-> Soviet Union & co. In any case, I still do not understand why you concentrate on past threats instead of current ones. And I would still like to communicate via email with you. Why? Because I'd feel much better presenting and discussing my views in private (and you should too...) -- Nikodemos 20:19, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

First, I understand that you may be short on time, which is why I don't expect an immediate response from you; better to wait for a while and write a longer one than to be quick but brief. There is no need to reply to me the same day if you don't have sufficient time. Now, to get back to our discussion. My point about resources was made in response to your claim that developing nations can take the same path that the West once took. I said that there are simply not enough resources for that. You replied that new ones (specifically, new energy sources) will be found in the future. But this just proves my point: Developing nations, if they are to reach Western standards at all, will have to reach them using different energy sources and different economic models than the West did (though you might argue that they don't need to be too different). Regarding Marxism, it certainly is present on the internet, but its presence is feeble compared to the presence of, say, deontological ethics-based ideologies such as libertarianism, Objectivism and anarcho-capitalism. (don't believe me? visit anti-state.com, which currently boasts a forum with 15,255 topics and 325,260 posts, and promotes the view that Somalia is an anarcho-capitalist paradise - a view that is also being pushed on the wikipedia articles on Somalia and particularly anarcho-capitalism) And let's not even start talking about [http://www.stormfront.org/forum/ racialism]... (Threads: 227,584, Posts: 2,508,228, Members: 75,086, Active Members: 24,956 - that's an internet forum the size of a city). Forgive me, but I do not see the logic behind your choice of where to focus your efforts. I am frustrated that we never seem to have had the opportunity to work together despite our common views on ethics and democracy (our views diverge only on economics). -- Nikodemos 02:32, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

A new question just occured to me while trying to think things through from your point of view: What exactly are you worried about? Sudden changes in society (let's use the blanket term "revolutions" for convenience) never happen in times of peace and prosperity. Peace and prosperity make people support the status quo, and the only changes that are possible in such an environment are slow and gradual. Thus, if a system can ensure perpetual peace and prosperity, it is invulnerable to revolutions. If you believe that liberal democracy can ensure perpetual peace and prosperity, you must conclude that liberal democracies are invulnerable to revolutions. So the question is, what are you worried about? No radical ideology, no matter how appealing, has ever risen to popularity (let alone political power) in times of peace and prosperity. As long as liberal democracy continues to deliver, it is safe... -- Nikodemos 03:56, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

In support of the idea that liberal democracies are invulnerable to revolutions, evidence suggests that liberal democracy is particularly invulnerable to Communism. Please observe that no liberal democracy older than 3 years has ever turned into a Communist state. [1] That is why I am not inclined to blame Communism too much. In the absence of Communism, most of the countries that were Communist throughout the 20th century would have still been dictatorships of some kind or another. Maybe their dictators would have killed less people. Or maybe they would have killed more. Maybe Hitler would have won WW2. Who knows? I think we should count ourselves lucky that the 20th century turned out the way it did. With all the advances in medicine, science, standards of living and overall human happiness, the 20th century was the best century in human history. Here's to many more like it! Cheers, Nikodemos 04:55, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I almost forgot about this discussion and your reply to it. Sorry. Let's discuss the Russian Revolution. I believe that Russia was on the way to becoming a constitutional monarchy before 1914, but that path got closed off when WWI started. If you simply erase Lenin and the Bolsheviks from history, WWI still happens, Russia still suffers enormous casualties and social unrest, and the Tsar still abdicates in February 1917 and the Provisional Government is established. Then what? The Provisional Government keeps Russia in the war. The October Revolution doesn't happen - but the fact that such a small uprising toppled the PR in real history shows that the PR was extremely weak by October 1917. If the Bolsheviks didn't take it down, someone else would have. There were plenty of groups around wanting to take Russia out of the war, and the PR was far too weak and compromised by its pro-war stance to hold on to popular support and legitimacy. I simply cannot see the PR surviving into 1919, let alone stabilizing Russia into a liberal democracy. The most likely outcome would have been civil war, like in real history, except of a free-for-all nature rather than the Bolsheviks vs. the rest. Poland, Finland, the Caucasus nations and maybe Ukraine would have declared their independence and kept it. With no Bolsheviks to win the war and establish a central authority, the Russian Civil War may have dragged on for decades like the Chinese Civil War, or it may have ended with a ruined Russia being divided into numerous independent republics, kingdoms, and at least one self-proclaimed successor "empire" (if not two or three). These states would have continued border skirmishes for some time.

Meanwhile, in Germany, the Nazis would have developed just like in real life (unless you want to erase more than the Bolsheviks from history, which makes the scenario hopelessly unpredictable). The Great Depression would have still hit, and Hitler would most likely have still come to power. In World War II, the bickering Russian states would have fallen like a house of cards. Nazi victory in the war. End of game. Read Fatherland for the rest...

Granted, the part about the Nazis is quite speculative, but Russia, at least, would have ended up much like I described it. I do not see any realistic possibility for an outcome better than the real life Bolshevik rise to power. Now, if you erase only Stalin from history, then you might end up with a better outcome. There were clear democratic trends within some Bolshevik circles (and autocratic trends within others). In any case, you must remember that WW2 was a historical bottleneck: The Nazis almost won. Thus, any change in (recent) pre-WW2 European history runs the risk of producing a Nazi victory. A Marxist would say that you can't simply discuss "what if" scenarios by erasing political movements from history, because movements arise in response to objective historical conditions, and if you erase one then another, very similar movement will rise up to fill the vacant political space. I tend to agree with that idea. -- Nikodemos 08:39, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

This seems like a good place to make a comment about the concept I call the escalation of conflict, because it applies very well to what you are currently doing on the Vladimir Lenin article. You believe it doesn't give enough coverage to Lenin's darker side. So you set out to give it extensive coverage. In response, if no one else does anything in the mean time, I will eventually go do some research on texts that put Lenin in a very good light (and there are plenty of them! praising Lenin was the main concern of supporters of the USSR, after all) and I will document their opinion in the article. We might then have an edit war over it. And for what? To achieve a balance that had been there in the first place. I'm sorry, I know you really do believe Lenin was evil and his article should reflect that, but it will not happen. Not for very long, anyway. You really should just give communism a rest and concentrate on the very good work you have been doing on articles such as future energy development (which is excellent) and poverty. -- Nikodemos 14:19, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Human rights portal

Portal:Human rights I, Lucinor, creator of the Portal:Human rights, invite you as editor of Human rights-related articles to start contributing to aforementioned Portal.

--Lucinor 20:48, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Bad habit

You know, actually reading the "diff" isn't hard. You should do it and WP:AGF. It's the second time this has happened; why did you assume my edit was a bad one?? Infinity0 ^talk 18:48, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Talk:R. J. Rummel

Advice: Please stop targeting one or more users pages or talk pages for abuse or insults, unwarranted doctoring or blanking. It can be seen as vandalism and may get you blocked from editing Wikipedia. . What you are blanking is criticism of Rummel's theories and of the page. Regards. Septentrionalis 15:47, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Septentrionalis, you seem to want that Wikipedia should contain personal attacks and very serious unsourced accusations against a living person. Please do not continue with this.Ultramarine 16:03, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Warning: Please stop. If you continue to target users' pages or talk pages for vandalism you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Septentrionalis 17:43, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Septentrionalis, you seem to want that Wikipedia should contain personal attacks and very serious unsourced accusations against a living person. Please do not continue with this.Ultramarine 17:46, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

You are in edit conflict with my response; and have still blanked extensive sections on flimsy pretexts. The WP servers are unhappy today, but I should be reposting it shortly. Criticisms of Rummel's work are not personal attacks.

Septentrionalis 17:43, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Calling someone a Facist is a personal attack.Ultramarine 17:51, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Look again, he never did that. And it's fascist, not facist. Cheers. --Scaife ^(Talk) Don't forget Hanlon's Razor 18:46, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Please answer

This question was not rhetorical; I am puzzled. You could save yourself some work by just answering:

Ultramarine, why do you think that zero wars is important? There will still be a democratic peace if there are one or two exceptions. (Maoz calmly asserts that the Spanish-American war is the only exception in the middle of a paper warmly defending his theory against Gowa. He doesn't bother to give any reason.) Only you, and Weart, think zero, as opposed to very rare, matters. Only a handful of scholars, even among DPT supporters, appear to be convinced it's true, and Russett doesn't seem to care much.

Septentrionalis 17:33, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Most researchers have used prefabricated data sets like MIDs and the Polity data set. This is much easier and allows calculating statistics for all nations in the world during the last two centures. This research finds that democraces rarely have MIDs with one another. Most of the statistical controversy is about this claim. But the definition of MIDs excludes wars. Ray, Weart, and Russet are three scholars who have actually examined the history regarding wars. See this paper by another scholar "it remains true that there have been no inter-state wars between a clear-cut liberal democracy and another such state. All this empirical literature hangs on the examination of MIDs rather than inter-state wars" [2] Ultramarine 10:25, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Most of the majority who acknowledge exceptions note that they are marginal, or not "clear-cut". Some of the majority then dismiss the exceptions they find as unimportant, and they may well be right. But Rummel's position of no exceptions remains an extreme minority. Wayman also says "very few", not "none", and concludes that the full-scale wars, even with the contrast between "very few" and all the other wars of the last two centuries, supply insufficient information, in the technical sense, to prove anything - precisely Gowa's argument.

Please answer on my talk page; I found this by chance. Septentrionalis 17:58, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

He states "that there have been very few inter-state wars and very few democracies". Again, he states ""it remains true that there have been no inter-state wars between a clear-cut liberal democracy and another such state. All this empirical literature hangs on the examination of MIDs rather than inter-state wars"Ultramarine 19:46, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Utilitarian reflections: Do absolute numbers matter?

Yes, I am aware of the fact that you have ignored our discussion from over a month ago, but, as you have no doubt noticed, I have continued it anyway, in the hope that you will reply. I've also decided to approach you with an issue that I've been thinking about recently. In calculating total happiness, do we factor in population as a percentage (what fraction of humanity is happy), or do we factor in total numbers (how many people are happy). I believe there are inherent problems with the percentage approach: Suppose there was a total population of 6 billion, and 3 billion were very happy while the other 3 billion were very unhappy. We could therefore say that 50% of humanity is happy. If we were to painlessly kill off those 3 billion unhappy people, 100% of humanity would be happy. The percentage approach allows - or even requires - the elimination of people who are very unhappy in order to raise the fraction of humanity that is happy. This is unacceptable. Therefore we must use total numbers in our calculation of happiness. This leads us to conclude that population growth is good insofar as the additional persons will live reasonably happy lives. Once we have achieved a kind of society that can deliver happiness to the vast majority of people, it is in fact imperative that this society should include as many people as possible. But there is a limit to how many people can live on Earth. In order to achieve continued growth of our society, and thus increase total happiness, we must go beyond the boundaries of Earth and colonize other planetary bodies. In a nutshell, this is my argument for an intensive program of space exploration. What do you think? -- Nikodemos 06:18, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Useful idiot

I will search for the book in a local library and see if I can find the quote at the given page; that should hopefully settle the matter. -- Nikodemos 06:20, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Capitalism?

Short observation: Because you say you support "capitalism", many people assume you mean the laissez-faire variety. Many people also assume you oppose regulation or redistribution of wealth. However, as we both know, those assumptions are false. You support capitalism in the sense of a modern, predominantly capitalistic mixed economy. Perhaps you should make that more clear... -- Nikodemos 22:58, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah I'm totally for what Nikodemos had said. You seem to support capitalism but believe in taxing the wealthy to redistribute that wealth. Thats a fairly sound opinions. However, when most people hear capitalism, they are either thinking about how they can get rich from profit (Pro) or how someone else can get rich from profit (Anti). For example the current US president could be seen as a capitalist supporter, but he has LOWERED taxes for the richer population. This of course makes it easier for richer people to become richer, relative to poorer people (who you correctly point out are also becoming richer). So in effect the gap between rich and poor widening means that they are not becoming richer, relative to inflation.

I think you need to make it clear that you believe in high taxation of the richer proportion of society and redistribution of wealth. Otherwise it seems like you are supporting unrestrained capitalism, which leads to uneven distribution of wealth, which in my opinion is a bad thing :) Mostly Zen 00:04, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Template:Lists of countries

Thanks for your work indicating which members of these lists include maps. I'm not sure, though, what you have in mind when indicating "Only map" as the Homosexuality law and Abortion law articles seem to have both maps and lists. Apologies in advance if I've misunderstood or missed the obvious. Best wishes, David Kernow 11:12, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
PS Using Use of death penalty worldwide for the "Capital punishment" entry would also include a map and list.

Not concerned about equality? You should be

I seem to remember you some time ago saying that you do not understand why some people are so concerned about economic equality rather than, say, some absolute measure of poverty. I thought I should explain the reasons for my own concern.

The purpose of wealth is to generate happiness. But the same amount of wealth does not generate the same amount of happiness for all people. Rather, wealth exhibits diminishing marginal returns of happiness: The more wealth you have, the less you will care about one additional dollar. One dollar will produce more happiness if given to a poor man than if given to a rich man. So if you take a dollar away from a rich man and give it to a poor one, you will produce more happiness (for the poor man) than suffering (for the rich). It is therefore good, from a utilitarian point of view, to take money from the rich and give it to the poor (assuming no side effects).

Allow me to define a term: distributive efficiency. Distributive efficiency is a measure of the amount of happiness generated by a particular scheme of wealth distribution, considering total wealth to be constant. A certain scheme of wealth distribution is efficient if there is no way to increase total happiness any further by redistributing wealth. Conversely, a scheme of wealth distribution is inefficient if there is a way to achieve greater happiness with the same amount of wealth, by redistributing it.

As long as the rich have more wealth than the poor, our distribution is inefficient, since, as explained above, you could achieve greater happiness with the same amount of total wealth by redistributing it from the rich to the poor. As you begin such redistribution, you achieve greater and greater efficiency (there is less and less that you could possibly improve). Until when? Until wealth is distributed perfectly equally among the population. At that point, maximum happiness is achieved with the given amount of total wealth. Any further redistribution would lower happiness, since the additional happiness to the recipient of the redistributed wealth would be less than the suffering of the person who lost that wealth.

This is a very important point: If keeping total wealth constant, maximum happiness will be achieved by a perfectly egalitarian distribution of wealth. It shows why social equality should always be an important goal of any utilitarian.

Of course, in reality total wealth is not constant, and a perfectly egalitarian distribution of wealth will diminish it by eliminating financial incentives for individuals. As a result, happiness is maximized not by a perfectly egalitarian distribution of wealth, but by an appropriate balance between equality and incentives. This balance must be found and it must be maintained. That is a very good reason to care about income equality. Equality can be sacrificed for a good enough reason, but it should not be simply thrown away out of hand. -- Nikodemos 07:06, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Good points. Note that the World Bank have found that high inequlity in income and wealth is bad for growth and povertyh reductin, as I have added to the poverty article.Ultramarine 05:38, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for posting your reply on my Talk page. It did help me notice it! Following up to the above, I am wondering if there is some mathematical equation to express how much growth must be produced by a certain inequality in order to justify its existence (excessive inequalities that do not produce growth but in fact reduce it, like the ones you noted above, are bad on all accounts and should be eliminated without delay). -- Nikodemos 07:20, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I realize that everything I write on wikipedia is public, but are you watching my contributions or Pmanderson's Talk page? In any case, you can't deny that you are an ardent supporter of the DPT (I used the word "fanatic" rather broadly, and with no intended negative connotations), and it also seems very likely that, if you hadn't expanded the DPT article, neither Pmanderson nor Robert West would have ever bothered to write anything critical of it. Just like I wouldn't have bothered to do research on arguments pro-Communist states if you hadn't started attacking them. In articles on such things that you are very vocal about, you have the initiative; others merely react to what you do. Sometimes the reaction may be above and beyond your initial action - that's what I call escalation of conflict - but you still had the initiative. And you happened to meet with particularly strong opposition. Others do not. So they write biased articles, and those articles stay that way. You do see the point behind the concept of asymmetrical controversy, I hope?

Btw, I never did regard the DPT as an argument against socialism. On the contrary, as a strong supporter of democracy, I would love the DPT - if I thought it was true. But I don't. I tend to agree with the views expressed in this article. By the way, I've been meaning to ask you this: Have you covered the views of militaristic anti-democrats in the DPT article? Fascists might accept the DPT and use it as an argument against democracy, since they believe that wars are generally good things. How else is the master race supposed to get its lebensraum, after all...

And finally, I'll go check out the World Bank's math. -- Nikodemos 08:06, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I find the core of Matthew White's argument to be right on the mark: That the DPT largely depends on how you define "democracy" and "war". I reject statistical evidence because the meaningful historical period we have to work with is just a little over 100 years - simply not long enough to draw universal conclusions about democracies. Even if every proof given by supporters of the DPT is correct, all it shows is that a bunch of countries with related cultural heritage and who were often allied with each other did not go to war over the past 100-150 years. The only thing about democracy that is even mildly impressive is that it seems to have put an end to the endless European wars. But that could just as easily be attributed to WW2, the Cold War and MAD (nuclear powers like France and Britain cannot go to war with each other). I'm really sorry, but I simply cannot believe the DPT until at least a few more centuries of widespread democracy have passed. So far, Pax Romana lasted longer than democratic peace.

I will go read your working page on the DPT now. By the way, first comment: It needs a shorter title. :) -- Nikodemos 09:00, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

There were wars between the Roman Empire and other states, of course, just like there are wars between democracies and non-democracies. Regarding democracy today, I strongly believe that nuclear powers and their allies should be excluded from any discussion of the DPT, since MAD effectively prohibits them from waging war on one another. Has the literature discussed this (in my view very important) issue? From all possible democracy-democracy pairs, you should subtract those in which both warring partners are nuclear powers or have a nuclear ally. For comparison, you should also subtract nuclear non-democracies and their allies, of course. -- Nikodemos 09:15, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I find the argument derived from the Cod Wars and other similar events to be the most compelling for the DPT: Democracies don't go to war with each other because of public opinion. Imagine the public outcry if the big, bad UK had started sinking largely defenceless Icelandic ships. I see the merits of that argument. In a democracy, the government can only go to war if the population is persuaded that it is a just war. And, in the modern climate, any war against another democracy is viewed as unjust (indeed, any war at all is increasingly viewed as unjust). Btw, I'm not saying you shouldn't count alliances - I'm only saying you shouldn't count nuclear alliances. -- Nikodemos 14:19, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I must admit, you are beginning to sway me to the view that democracies are particularly unlikely to make war on each other. -- Nikodemos 14:43, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I uphold the principle that correlation is not causation in my analysis of just about everything, so all the correlation in the world won't convince me as much as one good causal argument. That's why I find the causal arguments for the DPT interesting. Notice that, overall, the general populations of Western nations seem to have experienced a dramatic drop in their tolerance of violence over the past centuries. In the Middle Ages, horrific public executions for petty crimes were commonplace, and drew large audiences. Slavery and domestic violence were once accepted as the norm. In WWI, record numbers of people volunteered to kill and die for no good reason at all. Wars were considered normal, even healthy. But all that changed. Wars increasingly came to be seen as aberrations, and casualties of just a few thousand soldiers are now considered too high. Capital punishment has been abolished in all Western democracies except the United States - which, by the way, is also the most belligerent of Western democracies. Perhaps the democratic peace is really just about a democratic aversion to violence in general? -- Nikodemos 15:12, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

solidusspriggan

if you would like to have a civil discussion then you may AIM me at Solidusspriggan

wiki isnt the most efficient of personal communication devices Solidusspriggan 04:20, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I wont discuss in depth on the wiki, one reason these edit wars escalate so much is beacuse of the non-real time nature of the talk page. If you could download AIM, GAIM, or Trillian. If you don't wish to download anything and have a Gmail account we can use the integrated Gmail messenger. It would also be possible to use yahoo messenger, or MSN. whatever you prefer.

Soviet Democracy Solidusspriggan 05:48, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Do you think that it was a real democracy or that for example Stalin corrupted the system? Ultramarine 05:54, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't speaking historically but rather conceptually.

There is research showing that democracies have very little democide. One argument against socialism is the large number killed under Stalin. But the research on democide and democracy could also be used by socialists as an argument that this would not have happened if there was real democracy. What do you think? Ultramarine 06:23, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

As you use large amounts data analyzed from a western economic perspective, a view that does not reach much farther than our shores, it automatically has capitilist bias, but this is not toe primary issue. You seem to think that I and other marxist may possibly be against democracy, but rather we are not, marx and lenin clearly lay out in many of their writings two important things. 1) The essentiality of democracy to socialism. 2)the dangers of bourgeois democracy, IE (representative). The form of democracy discussed, liberal democracy, in its very own article calls for freedom of trade and market. This is by its very nature an argument for capitilism. This is one of the things I meant when I said the article was biased towards liberalism/against socialism, and it is for the reason of self promotion within the article that I argue there should be no "support" section because the primary "supports" are all described within the article. The majority of the additions made of and to this section are highly (sen, wto, et al)tangential. Solidusspriggan 09:48, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Also, since the discussion is not structured I recommend we use some type of instant messaging service. The level of interaction here is just too low to get anything worked out, why dont you download GAIM, it is open source.

Democracies

Anarchists generally oppose actually existing democracies, like all other forms of state government, as inherently corrupt.

This is true. Anarchists support democracy but not current forms (which are corrupt, inefficient, untenable, etc etc). Pmanderson isn't being contradictory; he makes the distinction between theoretical democracy and existing "democracy" (in huge quotes). Tbh, democratic piece theory is a fringe view in itself, so I'd tend more to think that Pmanderson's "campaign against it" is only a reaction against any campaigns in support of it. -- infinity0 21:49, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I was being hasty in my speech. Anarchists support the community getting together and making the necessary decisions and actions; but "democracy" means rule of the people, or more often "rule of the majority" and anarchists oppose rule. An anarchist society wouldn't contain any democracy per se, more sociocracy (though "cracy" generally implies some sort of rulership or authority used to implement the decisions made). -- infinity0 21:53, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

The social and political structure of anarchy is similar to that of the economic structure, i.e., it is based on a voluntary federation of decentralised, directly democratic policy-making bodies. These are the neighbourhood and community assemblies and their confederations. In these grassroots political units, the concept of "self-management" becomes that of "self-government", a form of municipal organisation in which people take back control of their living places from the bureaucratic state and the capitalist class whose interests it serves.

Decentralised is contradictory to "democracy" as a political system (as it is commonly used and understood) - in that system, the methods of implementation are usually centralised and given authority (even though the people choose who the authority is). Even in direct democracy (and by that I take it everyone gets a vote, as in a referendum, as opposed to representative), an institution implements the demands of the people, not the people themselves. "Democratic" in the above passage just means the people make decisions. -- infinity0 22:02, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Hmm... I just looked again at Pmanderson's edit (the part that you pasted into my talk page). The only part that he says about anarchists opposing democracy is "they oppose existing democracies" or similar. They definitely do; the rest of that paragraph is OK, in my eyes. "Anarchists generally oppose actually existing democracies, like all other forms of state government, as inherently corrupt." is correct; "decline even the formal and coercive process of direct democracy" is correct; " some modern anarchists speak of association as direct democracy" is correct. -- infinity0 22:07, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Democracy, as it has come to mean in the sense of the political system, does not just mean "voting". It implies a (coercive) institution with power to do the people's bidding. That's what anarchists oppose, the centralisation of power. -- infinity0 22:08, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps Pmanderson was using "direct democracy" in the way that I was talking about - ie. with an institution with centralised power to carry out decisions. An Anarchist FAQ seems to use it in the sense of "everyone has a say in the decision". You should probaly make the meanings clear. -- infinity0 22:19, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

"For most anarchists, direct democratic voting on policy decisions within free associations is the political counterpart of free agreement" - within free associations. -- infinity0 22:22, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Here's my attempt:

Anarchists generally oppose actually existing democracies, like all other forms of state government, as inherently corrupt and coercive. For example, see Alexander Berkman's Prison Memoirs and the historical introduction to the 1970 edition, explaining his refusal to recognize the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania enough to defend himself at his trial. Most anarchists support a non-hierarchal and non-coercive system of direct democracy within free associations [3], but many do not regard this sort of society as being of the same class as the systems discussed in this article. As may be expected among anarchists, there is disagreement: Peter Kropotkin approved of Renaissance Florence in Mutual Aid; and some modern anarchists speak of association as direct democracy.

I think it's important to make it clear that democracy in anarchism is different from what a democratic political system is normally imagined. -- infinity0 22:35, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, that's fine, only say instead "Most anarchists support a system different from the others described in this article, a non-hiearchical and non-coercive..." etc, and add the "As may be expected among anarchists, there is disagreement: Peter Kropotkin approved of..." part at the end. -- infinity0 22:44, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, that's good. Except, http://www.infoshop.org/faq/secA2.html#seca211 is the link (it's the newer version). ^_^ -- infinity0 22:51, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Individualist anarchists such as Benjamin Tucker very much oppose democracy for the same reason they oppose Rouseeau's social contract --it subordinates the individual to the "general will." Communist anarchists may very well support it. RJII 02:24, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Arbcom violation

Copied from Septentrionalis talk page: "One matter of detail: the actual letter of the decision[4] was not breached; it applies only to the two articles Democratic peace theory and Criticisms of communism. I did not point this out on AN3 because the decision should have a certain elasticity, but it shouldn't apply everywhere. Septentrionalis 16:12, 28 March 2006 (UTC)"

And let the heralds publish peace

I am always in favor of a peaceful settlement. Please prepare a draft or outline in your user space of what you have in mind.

I suspect we have deep disagreements on what the DPT is, and who supports it. Maoz and Gleditsch, for example, are warm supporters of the existence and effectiveness of the democratic peace, even though they both disagree with Rummel on points of detail. But I would rejoice to find that I am wrong about this. Septentrionalis 16:38, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, User:Ultramarine/sandbox4 is already grievously inaccurate. Ray, Rummel, Weart and Russett (who is so spelt) are not the only supporters of the democratic peace; and many (I think, and have said, most) of its supporters say that war between democracies is very rare. You should also read all of Wayman's paper and see why he says the present theorists concentrate on MIDs:

The better argument by critics of the democratic peace is that there have been very few inter-state wars and very few democracies, so the lack of war between democracies is not so surprising (Small and Singer 1976). And it is especially unsurprising given that many of the democracies that have existed have been allies in NATO, driven into each other's arms by their sense of threat from the Soviet Union during the Cold War era. Other factors also may have driven them together, such as shared trade and prosperity, membership in common in international organizations, and the global drift toward less inter-state war nowadays. I agree with these critics, insofar as I would say that we need more democracies with the potential to fight each other, and who despite this did not fight, before we rush to the conclusion that this law has gained our confidence. I am confident in Boyle's law (the volume of a gas is proportional to its temperature in degrees Kelvin) to an extent I will never be about the democratic peace law. I have gained more confidence in the democratic peace as two peaceful decades have passed since Rummel first announced its discovery. I have also gained confidence in it because of Russett and Maoz's observation that India and Pakistan, which have fought three or four (Oneal and Russett 2001: 48) wars with each other since 1946, have not fought a war against each other when both were democracies. But, if we rely solely on whether there has been an inter-democratic war, it is going to take many more decades of peace to build our confidence in the stability of the democratic peace.

Note the phrase I agree with these critics.

I suppose that this could be because you are far from finishing it. Please get back to me when you have more. Septentrionalis 17:12, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I suggest that you add your arguments to the other section. Please let us try to end this conflict. Ultramarine 17:15, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I am not merely tired of fighting -- I didn't want to fight in the first place. I would far prefer to do this in a cooperative way, but I don't think the pro-con distinction works well, because (despite the impression you have) I am not committed to an anti-DPT position. In fact, I believe that some form of DPT is true, and I believe that is a Good Thing. Democracies should be less likely to fight for most of the reasons stated -- I just think that we need several more decades of evidence before we can have real confidence in it. Robert A.West (Talk) 22:15, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

From the article:

neither Russett nor Henderson is addressing the original finding of Rummel (and predecessors) that there have been no wars between democracies. Even if Henderson's analyses are correct, it remains true that there have been no inter-state wars between a clear-cut liberal democracy and another such state. All this empirical literature hangs on the examination of MIDs rather than inter-state wars, so it is important in assessing this literature to see what the occurrence of a MID between liberal democracies has meant, in terms of severity of armed conflict.

The objection that there haven't been enough modern wars to feel confident that democracies don't fight each other, especially when combined with the further objection that there might be a need to control for third variables (such as level of economic development, trade, joint alliance membership), has led to an explosion of research on MIDs between democracies. Crucial to such research has been the existence of the Correlates of War Project militarized inter-state dispute data set, containing about 2,000 militarized inter-state disputes (MIDs) since 1816."

This large number of cases of armed conflict between states allows one to get around the problem that there is a small number of cases (N) of modern wars. With MIDs data, one can test for whether there is a statistically significant absence of armed conflict between democracies, while controlling for a host of other variables. This has generated a huge and valuable literature beyond one's power to comprehensively review in a short paper, but useful literature citations are in Maoz (1997), Oneal and Russett (2001), and Henderson (2002). Ultramarine 10:59, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Freedom House

You have taken Freedom House's 2006 ratings, and a large part of the description, verbatim from their website. I see no disclaimer of copyright on their part; please read Wikipedia:Copyright. This is why external links are encouraged. Septentrionalis 03:28, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Pure democracy

I'd like to warn you that user:RJII is currently trying to further his own anti-democratic agenda through the creation of an article on something that never existed and never had any supporters, namely a so-called "pure democracy". He is inserting comments about it in the articles democracy and democracy (varieties).

I have taken note of the attempt to give undue weight to opponents of democracy in the main democracy article and I will help you counter it. -- Nikodemos 05:04, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. RJII 05:09, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

A pure democracy is one that has no constitutional protections for individual rights. Most people oppose this form of government. RJII 05:12, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Correction. A pure democracy is one where the people make the laws by voting. It's a synonym for "direct democracy." Still though, there are of course no protections for individual rights --the people are the law, rather than there being a strict constitution that is extremely difficult to change. Direct democracy is what the founders of the US were disparaging in choosing a republican system instead. RJII 05:09, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

A Lakatosian View of the Democratic Peace

Interested in your thoughts on this paper. Ray A Lakatosian View of the Democratic Peace Research Program http://sitemason.vanderbilt.edu/files/g/gDf5Ty/6%20ray%20demo%20peace%20FIRST%20PROOFS.pdf You can reply here. --Salix alba (talk) 23:30, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I think it a good overview of many studies. Obviously Ray is a DPT supporter. I think he has some good arguments and the DPT may be an interesting example of how one research program is replacing another. Ultramarine 02:34, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Here is another paper commenting on Ray's.[5]Ultramarine 02:37, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Please stop editing my talk page long enough for me to do so without edit conflicts. Septentrionalis 02:53, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. Septentrionalis 03:01, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is conducted by discussion

We have both been reprimanded for conversing by edit summaries, without discussion . The current events section does not serve any purpose as you have mutilated it (and you have never objected to it before.) Septentrionalis 19:03, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I have moved most of it to other parts. The only thing removed was the strange claims that Iran is a liberal democracy. Ultramarine 19:10, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Stalin intro

The version of the intro that I restored was lifted from the 13:22, 28 January 2006 version of the article-- a version that you had last edited. [6] Thus I really doubt that you have a specific objection to it. That version was written well enough to pass as an intro to an encyclopedia article. However, the version you just restored minutes ago is terribly written, not nearly as effective as a version of the intro you were editing earlier. See the criticisms I posted on User talk:Drogo Underburrow. 172 | Talk 12:20, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I noted each of your points on Drogo's talk page and made changes accordingly before reinserting the version of the intro written over the years by Mikka, Fred Bauder, yourself, and many other users. [7] Please stop restoring that other version. It is so poorly written that it is an embarrassment to Wikipedia. 172 | Talk 20:50, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

DPT references

I see that, and you have a good point. However, I don't think the right way to approach it is to completely rewrite the article. You could have just inserted new references into the old version, waited until Septentrionalis saw your changes, made note of them, then restructured the article. Rewriting the article completely doesn't help build consensus. -- infinity0 17:24, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

If you add them everywhere it would be unhelpful. I get the impression you try to respond to all the criticisms made by citing sources - but please remember that any counter-arguments will have their own rebuttals, so if you keep adding stuff then the article becomes bloated. The point is to try to say as much as possible in as little space as possible. If you have any sources disagreeing with the criticisms, it may be best to add them in the "arguments for" section as a separate point instead of as a counter-argument to a criticism. -- infinity0 17:37, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Fair use images

Hi Ultramarine. I see that you're using a fair use image on your user page. (LocutusofBorg.jpg) However, please note that the use of such images outside the mainspace contravenes copyright, as fair usage cannot be claimed in this case. Please could you remove it? Thanks! Skalle 9 April 2006

Situation of administrator abuse

Hi, I'm in a potentially awkward position with an Administrator. I have read the Wiki pages on dispute resolution but I'm still not sure how to proceed.

The Admin ContiE has a personal grudge against me for reasons I do not fully understand. He has been this way since I began frequenting wikipedia.

I have done work improving the furvert article. He has basically gone on a crusade against any edit I make. He controls every furry category article and several others ruthlessly. He is an iron fist and bans anyone he edit wars with. I had uploaded pictures and he deleted them with no talking. He seems to believe I am every person he has had an edit war against. He is always using personal attacks, calling me troll without reason. I uploaded them again and he voted them for deleted, but to his surprise the person who runs the images, thank you Nv8200p, found they were acceptable once I tagged them properly. Just recently he removed both the images without himself discussing it in the talk page (unless he was the same person who discussed only one) with the edit here [8] Then ContiE assumed bad faith, added his constant insult of troll in the talk page. It appears on a completed different wiki, a comedy one in all things, somebody else stole my username and I believe this was Conti himself and uploaded them. ContiE showed it as his reason. While vandalism like his, I would revert and mention it, he would ban me permanently if I undid his edit. That is why I am asking admins for help. He holds a couple of accounts on wikipedia and I think they are administrators so I have to be careful who I tell about this. Arights 06:13, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

On the democratic peace article

I have read and added much new information from peer-reviewed articles, which hopefully is allowed. I would be glad to discuss any objection with you. I do consider the subject important, since it is the best empirical support for democracy. Ultramarine 00:26, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't consider it within my purview to mediate in the issue, for that please try WP:TINMC. My sole contribution will be enforcing the ArbCom's rulings on the issue. Stifle (talk) 00:29, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I understand. But I do not think adding such information is sterile edit warring. Please have a look at User:Salix alba/History of conflict between democracies, using material from the academic debate, you might find it interesting. Ultramarine 00:32, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I also didn't think adding such information was sterile revert warring, which is why I didn't block you for it :) Stifle (talk) 00:34, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

DPT

I would be perfectly willing to see Ultramarine and myself both leave the article alone for six months, say. I don't particularly want to revert war for the purpose though; would you be interested in proposing this to ArbCom directly? Septentrionalis 18:38, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

The finding of fact in the arbcom decision was the maintaining of two separate and parallel versions which was reverted between. This is not the the case now. I will not again participate in having two separate and parallel versions. This was a mistake and the arbcom decision successfully prevents this. I think that the recent edits have created a much more correct article without having two different version. So I think that the arbcom decision has been very successful.

I think that if you examine the edits since I started edited the article again, there has not been sterile edit wars. Instead numerous findings from recent studies has been added, adding the view of the majority of the researchers in this field. Something Pmanderson almost completely ignored in the text he had created during the several months and which selectively described the view of the critics. So there has not been sterile wars, but instead a constructive improvement, adding the view of the other side. Again, the maintaining of two separate and parallel versions was a mistake, which I regret. However, this is not the case now and I think that if the recent edits are examined it will be found that the article has been improved by also adding the view of the other side. Ultramarine 05:46, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Ultramarine for the time being, but that is strictly as user, not an admin. Stifle (talk) 10:29, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Race and Intelligence

Hello Ultramarine. May I invite you (if you're still interested, that is), to go take a look at the Race and Intelligence page and look at some of the latest developments? I believe your input there could help. Thanks, --Ramdrake 13:48, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Cuba

Hi,

I am sending this message to editors I know who have done work on articles related to communism.

Adam Carr recently started bringing the Cuba article up to standard, gradually rewriting each section. In the meantime, his work has been resisted for several weeks by a group of Castro supporters who dispute, among other things, that the fact that Cuba is not a democracy. Adam Carr is now at a conference for a couple of weeks, meaning his work will likely be undone. If you have the time and the interest, please take a look.

Best regards. 172 | Talk 05:26, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Stalin and Intelligence

You insist that the supposed fact of Stalin not making good use of intelligence and that leading to the military disaster in the early stage of the war, must be included. I looked over the source, you site to support that claim, but I'm afraid to say it's quiet unconvincing. It says that intelligence of provisional date of an attack was provided several months in advance. I know that, but how does this imply that Stalin took no measures to prepare for the possible invasion? In fact, the armaments production in the Soviet Union was on increase during the last pre-war year. Then the author of this article claims that "the precise date and time of the invasion were revealed by a reliable source in Berlin fully three days before the Germans attacked." Maybe so, although I have no idea where the author derived that "fact" from. The conventional historian agree that multiple warning from multiple spies were forwarded to Moscow throughout May and June 1941 and all claimed the invasion would take place on a different date. Therefore it could not have been possible on the part of Soviet leadership to know the exact date on which the attack would take place. Finally, even if the precise date of an attack was available, what difference would it make if it came three days before? Yes, troops were not in defensive positions and planes weren't camouflaged. That could explain the initial German victories, but not their successes all the way into December. Therefore, I insist that your opinion on this subject must be included in the article not as a fact but a supposition. Thanks. NapoleonIII 18:00, 13 May 2006 (UTC)