I’m curious, and I was hoping those of my many tens of readers who know a lot about history could answer my question. Here goes:
Is peace even possible? Has an empire, nation or state ever existed for which peace prevailed?
I guess to get a good answer, we need to define the terms of “peace” and “prevail.” For my question, I am making the following definitions:
peace: A state of non-discord within the nation. A period without civil disturbance. Existing (as a nation) without enmity or hostilities with other nations.
prevail: I guess in this case, we’ll say that the above-described “state of peace” must exist for more than, oh, I don’t know, say six or so generations.
9 responses so far ↓
1 nic // Jul 14, 2003 at 9:21 pm
Simple answer—no.
As long as people have mutually exclusive interests and by extension states have competing national interests, there will be discord. War is the natural state. Any utopian vision in which “we all just get along” is not only naive, but pretty damned stupid.
I suppose you could have some Roddenberry-esque world. But have you ever examined the Star Trek universe? (OK I am about to sound like some twisted cross between a Trekkie and a policy hack.) If you stop to think about the descriptions we get of the Federation, it becomes fairly evident that there must be some kind of military dictatorship going on. No money? Give me a break. Everything seems to be run by Star Fleet, including colonization, scientific research, and diplomacy. And look at what they do to dissidents. I could go on, but I’ll spare y’all.
Anyway, my point is that short of some worldwide totalitarian dictatorship (which would probably be marked by insurgencies and rebel movements), it is inconceivable that there could be a time without war. Even if we are attacked by Mars, there would inevitably be internal power struggle on Earth. Men are simply guided by self-interest. Period.
Besides, peace is bad for business.
2 Scotty The Body // Jul 14, 2003 at 9:37 pm
I guess I should have also added that liberty for citizens must be art of the whole thing.
3 nic // Jul 15, 2003 at 7:18 am
Aside from basic human nature and the fact that there will always be someone who WANTS dominion over others, there is no tradition of individual rights in many cultures. I guess it isn’t theoretically impossible to somehow convince the entire world that western notions of rule of law and individual freedoms and human rights are the best way, but not everyone in the West believes that yet either. Why not go with a universal Marxist model instead? Maybe the ends do justify the means. Maybe we should surrender our will to the State for our own good.
I know I sound cynical here, but, well, I am.
4 Scotty the Body // Jul 15, 2003 at 7:24 am
me too. that’s why i asked.
5 nic // Jul 15, 2003 at 7:29 am
Look at it another way. Basic game theory doesn’t tend to support any system that requires that you trust your neighbor.
Think about Diplomacy. Did you ever trust me? In that case, it wasn’t even in my interest to invade you and violate our treaty. Nor was it in yours. But we both know what happened…
Cynicism is healthy, rational, and realistic.
6 trav // Jul 15, 2003 at 9:39 am
hey, peace is good for the airline business.
that said, we are converging on a kind of world peace where there is an evenly-distributed degree of low-grade criminal street warfare taking place everywhere at the same time. It will be the only kind of able to persist after we roll out the bowel-buster cannons that render whole army groups invalid in one shot.
7 nic // Jul 15, 2003 at 9:50 am
I see. And which Japanese anime cartoon did you derive this theory from?
8 trav // Jul 15, 2003 at 1:57 pm
A wildly imaginary apocalyptic anime story called ‘Rummy-san in neo-Rome’
9 nic // Jul 15, 2003 at 3:34 pm
I think you are giving Rummy-san too much credit.
Leave a Comment