Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

Michael W. Doyle, “Liberalism and World Politics,” In Conflict After the…

- - - - Democratic capitalism leads to peace p. 150
      - Only war privateers profit off of war so citizens will not accept the burdens/costs of war. P. 150
      - Free trade prevents war p150
      - Democracy, development, and sustained modernization are associated with peaceful conditions p150.
      - Free states do not make war with each other… does not mean that they don’t/won’t make war though p. 150
        
        Assumptions
        
        Materialistic minions = no room for other motives
        
        Focuses exclusively on motives of citizens and applied to the states, assuming there are no political gains that would force a war
        
        Assumes homogenized governing landscape
    - - Free citizens equip large armies to fight for public glory and the common good p 152
      - Division of powers amongst senate, consuls, tribunals (the people). p. 152.
      - We are lovers of glory. p. 152.
      - republics are best form of state for imperial expansion and in order to survive states must plan to expand
    - - Pacific federation or pacific union: zone of liberal states, working in cooperation, able to negotiate differences.
      - Liberal states exercise peaceful restraint, and a separate peace exists between them. p. 154.
      - Other forms of government cannot claim the same prolonged experience with peace and prosperity as liberalism.
      - Peaceful restraint only exists with other liberal states... we're quite happy to go to war with authoritarian states. p. 154.
      - Do not need to rely on "moral purpose" to achieve peace, only need "devils who understand" the consequences of war. p. 156.
      - Republics can still be war-like (and often are, mostly against non liberal republics), but they do have a hesitation, this is different than the capricious monarchy. p. 157.
      - Modern liberal scholars give weight to the impact of international commerce and transnational organizations/NGO's on creating conditions for perpetual peace. p. 157.
      - The political bonds of liberal rights are an important binder of states (more successful than treaties or economic interests between liberal and non-liberal states). p. 158.
    - - Kant's republics can achieve peace, while Machiavelli's republics cannot. Unlike Schumpeter's capitalist democracies, Kant's republics remain in a state of war with non-republics (they only achieve peace with other republics). p. 159.
      - Bipolar conflict between two superpowers (US and Russia) created nuclear peace where both sides fully understood the risks of escalation to war and created stability in relations. This stability does not extend outside of superpowers. p. 159.
      - "Perpetual peace is the end point of the hard journey his republics will take. The promise of perpetual peace, thebiolent lessons of war, and the experience of a partial peace are proof of the need for and the possibility of world peace. They are also the gorounds for moral citizens and statesman to assume the dty for striving for peace. p. 159.