Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 4.3bsd-beta 6/6/85; site ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Path: utzoo!lsuc!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!ucbvax!ernie.berkeley.edu!tedrick
From: tedrick@ernie.berkeley.edu (Tom Tedrick)
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Re: Democracy  & Peace
Message-ID: <12589@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU>
Date: Sun, 23-Mar-86 06:26:50 EST
Article-I.D.: ucbvax.12589
Posted: Sun Mar 23 06:26:50 1986
Date-Received: Wed, 26-Mar-86 23:08:37 EST
References: <7801138@inmet>
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Reply-To: tedrick@ernie.berkeley.edu.UUCP (Tom Tedrick)
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
Lines: 20

In article <7801138@inmet> janw@inmet.UUCP writes:
> [ ... ] Here is a test which
>democracies pass but authoritarian and aristocratic systems fail.
>Hardly obvious a priori - but it is a FACT !
>
>Democracies are not warlike. If they were, they'd sometimes fight
>each  other. By implication, if they fight someone else - or have
>an arms race with someone else - the OTHER side's the problem.

Well, I claim it is or should be obvious a priori. In a 
democracy power is divided among the people so that no
one group becomes dominant. The people are kept
busy struggling amongst themselves for wealth, power,
etc. It is very difficult to get a large number of people
to agree on anything, especially initiating a war, hence
war for a democracy is usually a last resort.

On the other hand, in a society where one group does gain
control of the balance of power, the next natural step is
to extend that power.