No Kings = No Wars?

File: 480.png (71KB, 592x554px) Image search: [Google]

71KB, 592x554px

No.

>>507349
>no wars in the early ages of the world
shiggydiggy

>>507365
Care to elaborate?

>>507377
There weren't though.

>>507382
>what are tribal raids
War is not even solely a human sport. Ants engage in it, as do some higher primates.
Also, while there are clashing wills and no force to prevent them from making conflict, violence WILL happen. You are implying that only kings are capable of desire. (in the state of anarchy of early human tribes)
>>507349
>there can be no war without monarchy
Yeah, look at how democracy completely removed war. It's not as if revanchism, xenophobia and geopolitics are real things.

>>507349
Are you one of the developers of Hearts of Iron IV?

>>507349
>Holland, without a king hath enjoyed more peace for this last century than any of the monarchical governments in Europe

Dutchie here, The Dutch Republic Supplied any and all nations of europe with arms. We were so big in armsdealing that if we were going to fight in a war, we would probably face weapons that had been in our hands once.

We did not fight many wars after 1707. Chiefly because we started to go broke, the economy was slowly collapsing. We did fight some wars though.

>>507382
>Care to elaborate?
He fails to explain how the most militaristic and the most militarily successful state of the ancient world - Rome - was a republic, how Greek democracies were fighting each other all the time and how democratic Athenian assembly voted for total genocides of their former allies couple of times. Punic wars, the most devastating wars in ancient western Mediterranean, were fought between two republics. And he's just wrong about whole ancient Israel thing.

>war-torn monarchies
belgium, the uk, the netherlands, norway, sweden, spain, canada, australia, new zealand lichtenstein, monaco, san marino

>peaceful republics
congo, liberia, syria, iraq, afghanistan, somalia, mexico

retarded idea
>Hurrduru no kings = no politics
kill yourself.

>>507442
Thomas Paine was one of the most influential political thinkers in the history of humanity and his ideas contributed to the creation of the greatest nation and system of government ever conceived. Show some respect you fucking idiot.

>>507452
And this idea of his is retarded.

>>507422
>Modern European """"""""""""""""""""Monarchies""""""""""""""""""""

>>507421
Most greek city states were not democrasies though and most democrasies banded together.

>>507452
How did he influence the creation of Switserland?

>>507452
> Thomas Paine was one of the most influential political thinkers in the history of humanity
Really now.

>>507480
Have you never heard of the American Revolution? It's kind of a big deal.

>>507422
Constitutional monarchies have very little to do with monarchy though. It's like "Peoples Republic of X" or "Free State of X

>>507467
>Most greek city states were not democrasies though
Sure.
>and most democrasies banded together.
No? It was more about common interests than political ideology. And Greek democracies weren't any more peaceful than oligarchies, monarchs or tyrants.

>>507452
t. James Smith

>>507349
in his defence there have been significantly less major wars as Democracy has spread, and democracies are often unwilling to fight other democracies.

>>507469
>How did he influence the creation of Switserland?
He was borrn 445 years after the foundation of Switzerland, so I guess his contribution was not that big.

>>507481

Wasn't that the shitty meme prequel to the actually relevant French one which basically changed the course of world history

>>507452
I went to the same school as Thomas Paine and calling him one of the greatest thinkers of all time is a bit much desu

>>507481
We spent half an hour on it in school. Compare it to several months on the one in France.

Its not only kings, nor only democracies as the reactionaries would like you to think. Its all kinds of governments, because they can socialize the cost of war, finance it out from the pockets of the governed.

War is above all expensive. It wont happen if the governor has to pay it all by himself.

>>507349
>Holland
sure. 17th century was the Dutch Golden Age and it so happened that the family of Orange-Nassau built up a pretty strong dinasty. They were practically kings, and became such as the king of England in 1689.

Whos to say the notion of "king" is literal? There cannot be war without some sort of leader who extends his clawy hands for resources that are not his own and thus starts a war.

>>507561
Thatsthejoke.jpg

>>507619
Without society, the state of war is eternal (each pursues his own desire, and those clash around desirable possessions). With society, there is war with other societies because of geopolitical reasons, with each society trying to ensure itself security and prosperity. There can be war even if the society doesn't have a leader-figure (a hypothetical "perfect" direct democracy), because people sometimes desire war (revanchism in pre-ww2 Germany, the people of the US public being overwhelmingly supporting of the interventions in the Middle East etc.)

>>507649
These singular persons are extending for resources that are not their own and thus starting a "war". It is seen daily in our corporate capitalistic society.

>>507461
Never fucking reply to me again unless you're contributing to the thread.

>>507661
That is every person ever. Guess what? Desires exist and not only leaders have them.

>>507649
Without the state there would be nothing preventing the "separate" societies from integrating into one through cultural and economical globalization, like its already happening.

Its thanks to globalization that the thought of an inter-European WAR, something extremely popular over the course of history, is now a ridiculous proposition. As simple as it may sound, each European individual is more likely to have positive emotional connections to individuals of other European countries, and to their culture as a whole. This makes it that much difficult to convince him to go to war against such countries.

>>507687
>without the state one would be created, possibly larger than current states
Brilliant observation. Also, that state would probably develop as it did through history (groups => tribes => states)

>>507698
Its cool that you think so, but I wasn't equating society and state.

If anything, globalization should probably weaken the state as a whole, with the increasing demand for foreign goods and the blurred lines of nationality and borders. The only thing that could counter this is deliberate action (as opposed to the spontaneous actions brought by globalization)

>>507687
>>507698
>>507715
Paine makes a distinction between societies and states, the former being positive and natural, the latter being negative and artificial.

>>507492
There's less wars between nations, but wars within nations have grown rampant and are completely out of anyone's control. How is that better?

>>507687
>Without the state there would be nothing preventing the "separate" societies from integrating into one through cultural and economical globalization, like its already happening.

Except that's being forced by the states

What the fuck are you on about?

>>508114
How so?

Right now there are people all over the world thinking about moving to Canada, or importing iron ore from Australia, what about listening to K-Pop or Norwegian black folk metal? This is all globalization and the state is playing no part.

The state can act against globalization by protectionist measures, closed borders and internet censorship. In some cases it can act for it, with free trade treaties and even massive refugee initiatives. But by and large, globalization has been a ground-up initiative, it is likely that what you interpret as states promoting globalization is actually states stopping their active opposition to it.

>>508062
he is right

People back then didn't really have a concept of what hunter-gatherers, or even apes, were like:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v7Lj-RMU7Y4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a7XuXi3mqYM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CPznMbNcfO8

>"The violence began on January 7, 1974 when a party of six males from the southern Kasakela tribe brutally attacked and murdered Godi, a young, well-liked male member of the northern Kahama tribe. Over the next four years, all six males from the Kahama tribe would be killed by the Kasakela. Female Kahama tribe members suffered similar fates – one was murdered, two went missing and were never found, and three were kidnapped, beaten, and raped by the Kasakela. The war was over a sliver of jungle turf – and the combatants were monkeys. "

>>508476
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gombe_Chimpanzee_War

The first outbreak of violence occurred on January 7, 1974, when a party of six adult Kasakela males attacked and killed "Godi", a young Kahama male, who had been feeding in a tree. This was the first time that any of the chimpanzees had been seen to deliberately kill a fellow chimp.
Over the next four years, all six of the adult male members of the Kahama were killed by the Kasakela males.Of the females from Kahama, one was killed, two went missing, and three were beaten and kidnapped by the Kasakela males. The Kasakela then succeeded in taking over the Kahama's former territory.
These territorial gains were not permanent, however; with the Kahama gone, the Kasakela's territory now butted up directly against the territory of another chimpanzee community, called the Kalande. Cowed by the superior strength and numbers of the Kalande, as well as a few violent skirmishes along their border, the Kasakela quickly gave up much of their new territory.

The outbreak of the war came as a disturbing shock to Goodall, who had previously considered chimpanzees to be, although similar to human beings, "rather 'nicer'" in their behavior. Coupled with the observation in 1975 of cannibalistic infanticide by a high-ranking female in the community, the violence of the Gombe war first revealed to Goodall the "dark side" of chimpanzee behavior.

>>508500
She was profoundly disturbed by this revelation; in her memoir Through a Window: My Thirty Years with the Chimpanzees of Gombe, she wrote:

For several years I struggled to come to terms with this new knowledge. Often when I woke in the night, horrific pictures sprang unbidden to my mind—Satan [one of the apes], cupping his hand below Sniff's chin to drink the blood that welled from a great wound on his face; old Rodolf, usually so benign, standing upright to hurl a four-pound rock at Godi's prostrate body; Jomeo tearing a strip of skin from Dé's thigh; Figan, charging and hitting, again and again, the stricken, quivering body of Goliath, one of his childhood heroes. ...

>>508501
Serves her right for believing in noble savage bullshit. Even worse, noble beast.

>DUDE COMMON SENSE LMAO

>>507349
>1776

Well, this explains everything...

>>510101
Yes, the end of kings and the birth of Freedom.

>>507564
>>507596

The French Revolution was directly inspired by the American Revolution.

You dipshits.

Still not sure why the failed French Revolution is regarded more favorably on this board than the successful American Revolution. Is it all the /leftypol/tards on here?

>>507349
The USA made a lie of it when they invaded the Mexican Republic.

>>510776
They drew first blood, it was a war of self-defense.

>>510801
The USA illegally entered Mexican territory and provoked an attack. Polk's ambition was naked and apparent even at the time. It was a manufactured cassus belli and a clear cut false-flag operation.

>>510819
lol okay mr. conspiracy theorist

File: tx.png (4KB, 457x234px) Image search: [Google]

4KB, 457x234px

>>510819
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaties_of_Velasco
texas goes up to the rio grande, it's official, no backsies

>>507349
two words: tribal warfare

File: thomaspaine.png (2KB, 512x178px) Image search: [Google]

2KB, 512x178px

>>510937
chieftains were like minikings

Thomas Paine meant dictators of all sorts. Common Sense by Thomas Paine actually gives a very good coverage of the basics of politics.

>>507619
If that's so, then the quote is merely a commentary on nature, rather than a call for change. Humans are naturally hierarchical, so leaders will always exist.

File: EdmundBurke1771.jpg (92KB, 672x800px) Image search: [Google]

92KB, 672x800px

>>507349

>>507664
Wew lad.

>>510982
But in that case, "chieftains" are older than the human race, and even apes. So, does he mean that there were no wars when our ancestors were some kind of arboreal rodent?

I mean, the guy is getting is ancient history from the Bible. Not paleontology, anthropology, or biology.

Also, how does he justify American revolutionaries promptly going genocide mode on Native Americans? Native Americans have chieftains so THEY caused the war?

>>510450
Not really
The American "revolution" was merely an independence war in an overseas colony
It gave little indication that a major european country could get rid of its king
The US "revolution" did indeed indirectly cause the French Revolution by creating a deficit in French monarchy's budget

>>510766
After the French killed their king, they resisted for 23 years against enemy monarchies and even conquered Europe in the process, thus spreading their values all over the most relevant continent of the world.
It's what killed feudalism forever.
Sure the monarchy was resitored in the end, but only a few decades later, some other revolutions erupted all over the continent

Paine was a fucking idiot who got BTFO'd by Edmund Burke of all people.

>>512165
How did he get BTFO'd?

>>512170

He tried to argue that human rights was derived via humanity being created equal in the image of God and he attacked Burke's argument that the only rights you have as a human is the one granted to you by the polity in which you live in.

Typically in human rights theory, Burke's view of a post-metaphysical theory of Human Rights is generally agreed to be correct and flows into Arendt's theory that the only true human right is the right to have political rights. Paine's view that everyone was somehow protected by being God's creatures, stuck in the metaphysical, did not hold up anymore, especially in light of the holocaust.

>>512186
>Typically in human rights theory

This is not necessarily true, there are countries (mostly civil law countries) in which a secular but naturalist version of HR theory is the norm.

>>507349
I'd rather say: no governmental organisation of any form = no wars
Mostly because there would be no groups that can wage war against each other

>>512293
But even apes wage wars. So, even some basic hierarchy and extended family structure can cause wars. Your brother gets in a dispute and gets killed, then you kill the killer and things just keep escalating until two clans are smashing each other's newborns against rocks. Not to mention territorial problems in case of droughts and famines, where an extended family would obviously prefer to take all the food supply to its own members rather than let some strangers eat.

>>507349
That's why there were never any wars in Africa prior to the arrival of the white man

So everyone thinks this is the stupidest shit we've ever read? Good.

>>512514
That's sort of what I was trying to say, any form of society can cause war or war-esque scenarios

>>512514
>>512571
I think we must make a distinction between family feuds and "fuck 1000000 people" wars.

>>512558
non-American detected, enjoy your unelected hereditary monarch, cuck.

>>512677
>unelected

Americans literally can't vote for their president anon

>>512558
Well yeah, it's propaganda clearly. Just willfully ignoring republican Rome and democratic Athens.

>>512664
Assuming similar conflicts are widespread throughout different clans, and the percentage of deaths-per-population-total is equal or higher than modern wars, then it amounts to the same thing. And there is archaeological support for that.

I mean look here:
http://johnhawks.net/weblog/reviews/life_history/aging_evolution/hill_2007_hiwi_mortality.html
Five hunter-gatherer tribes mentioned in the study. Violence is the cause of death for 30-55% of the adult males, depending on the tribe.

Or here for extensive archaeological support:
http://ourworldindata.org/data/violence-rights/ethnographic-and-archaeological-evidence-on-violent-deaths/

I have no issue with Paine, since he had no good data for reference in the 1700s. But there is no excuse to defend these notions of peaceful primitive people nowadays. This behavior goes back to before we split up with chimps.

>>507564
What did Paine think of the French Revolution? Considering he was in France when it happened and was nearly guillotined by the revolutionaries I'd be curious if he was critical of it and why.

>>507349

No, it's actually the opposite.

>>513821
Study history.

>>514034

Maybe you should.

Monarchies were put in place by people who wanted an end to religious wars, tribal feuds and foreign incursions that threatened their lives and generally speaking, life under the modern democratic order has been more volatile.

>>514119
Exactly. Look at Genghis Khan who became a monarch and ended much of the infighting on the steppe and within his people.

File: War_deaths_caused_by_warfare.png (48KB, 1000x707px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 1000x707px

Why Americans like this proto-communist pseudo-intellectual so much?

>>514149

I can't tell if you think you're being sarcastic.

>>507377
Technically there was only large skirmishes of maybe 50 men until 10,000 bc

>>507349
He has a good point. What we're noticing now in history is a unique period with little to no major conflicts. A lot of this can be attributed to democratization and the emergence of capitalism and trade, it's now more profitable to trade for the goods you need than to conquer someone over said goods.

>>514734
We're in this period because of the Pax Americana.

>>514734
>A lot of this can be attributed to democratization and the emergence of capitalism and trade, it's now more profitable to trade for the goods you need than to conquer someone over said goods.

The notion that democracy equals peace or free trade is fallacious because the governments with the most limits on free trade tend to be republics and democracies have proven themselves to be anything but totally peaceful as more people have probably been killed in the last 300 years in the name of democracy or ideologies that claim to be democratic than in the name of any monarchical order with no pretensions of being a democratic system, even if we take the exaggerated death tolls of medieval chronicles for granted.

It's more accurate to say that wide and diverse trade facilitates peace and trade is facilitated by less government involvement of any kind, be it democratic or not in otherwise private business affairs.

Heck, in the middle east, the governments with the most free trade are the monarchies.

>>507467

Most democracies aren't really democracies.

There has never been a "real democracy" anywhere at any time because democracy is untenable and can never be realized in any state.

>>514856
I don't think it's fair to call something 'not a democracy' just because part of the population who happens to live within your walls or borders is unable to vote.

>>514883

The problem is that then the definition of "democracy" becomes more and more subjective and so it becomes a meaningless thing where even the most "undemocratic" state by modern standards can suddenly call itself democratic and the most democratic state becomes a tyranny.

>>514925
The idea that democracies can't be tyrannical is stupid.