Quote from: dinofelis on May 19, 2015, 03:19:10 PM

Quote from: BobK71 on May 19, 2015, 01:18:22 PM

If we can take a slightly smaller view, say over the last five hundred years, we should recognize the success of the "Westphalian" system. (The Peace of Westphalia set forth the principles of territorial integrity and non-intervention between European states, after the carnage of more than a century of warfare. Notwithstanding Napolean, Hitler, Putin, etc. the system is largely successful, especially since the non-European world has largely adopted the spirit over the last hundred years.)

I wouldn't call Europe a heaven of peace in the last 500 years

About every 50 years or so, there has been a devastating war in Europe over this time scale.

I think that the two elements which make regular warfare and conquest unprofitable today are the fact that two elements are usually required by the international community which has weight (essentially the USA, say):
- absence of slavery
- representative democracy.

As such, the usual goals of military conquest, namely enlarging territory, winning slaves and wealth from the conquered territory, and increase of power, now fall apart. Slavery is frowned upon. And if there is to be representative democracy in the conquered territory, that would rather lead to decrease of political power (if the conquered area is not favourable to your invasion, which is often the case).

So all the classical incentives of classical military invasion for a state have been ruined by the international pressure for absence of slavery and for representative democracy.

This is why most wars today are fought by proxies. There is no political gain any more in direct conquest of territory. It is only interesting if the area is remarkably rich, and much smaller than the invasion powers.

Representative democracies will use their armies to gain geopolitical power without annexation but by destruction of regimes that thwart their own geopolitical strategies of obtaining stuff from others.

Quote

Absent the real need to protect people against foreign aggression, monetary control and inflation has no real justification in today's world.

It does. After all, it is still the main tool to get goods, services and power to a small elite which shares financial and political power.

The goal of the state is to pump wealth from the productive to the elite. This has always been so, and it the principal reason of existence of a state. From the first kings to the most sophisticated form of modern government. However, as the modalities change, and the ways to get power change.

Besides the end of slavery and democracy, another modern sign of progress is the idea of territorial integrity. This is what makes it impossible for the US to do what Britain did, i.e. acquire colonies around the world and force them to keep paper sterling as reserves. The world simply won't allow it. The US only dominates the world indirectly by stirring up trouble (consciously or not) among countries and peoples and taking the role of the "balance of power" (i.e. by becoming the deciding force by siding with one side or the other.) This is not ideal, but it's progress. Domination at least requires the nod from the local elites.