However you wish to define.

Yes. Interesting. I have 1 Argument to support the statement that "Monarchies are better than democracies, because the Monarchs are more educated to take public office, because they are trained from young". Just saying. Just an intelectual argument

Yea. Also, All forms of actual on-ground democracy fail so often in the 4-5 criteria that you set

Yes, I agree

So really, I wonder if it’s even a sustainable model

Yes I wonder too.

Oftentimes ppl slander each other instead of debating ideas. Just saying. Whatever I say is in relationship with ideas not people 😛 Im not an imbecile. But I dont really mind if im slandered.

Anyway I believe that "Democracies are less likely to go at war with each other"

Argument 1 - There is more at stake than in an Dictatorship

I know you are - that discussion just went to a point where both of you were talking past each other and leading to frustration

😄 yea

Argument 2 - The mechanisms of declaring war are more difficult to achieve. - Achieveing consensus for war in a Democracy is harder

Argument 3 - Democracies tend to be economically interconected so people dont want war. Also, non-warring countries dont want war since they are also conected with democracies. Through trade and some other relationships

1. How is there more at stake? Actually more is at stake for the monarch (his empire, his land, his riches, his generations to come- all at stake)

Argument 4 - Democracies redirect resources harder for war than a dictatorship.

Sure, we can debate ^_^

2. Dondemocracies really wait for due process? Iraq war/ afghan war , one of them. Forgot which.

later great conversation

Do democracies *

4. Once decided to go to war, very monarch like SOPs are in play to mobilize forces.

Even in democracies

More at stake: more destruction. Democracies tend to be better financially and infrastructurally than Dictatorships. So more destruction

Harder to repair back

Stake is perceived loss by decision makers, not actual quantifiable loss.

A 50 store building is more expensive than a 10

Quantifiably more expensive yes?

No one does a cost benefit. Otherwise a lot of wars would not have happened. No?

Yes

If Germany went to war with France, it would be more destruction than Ghana and Uganda

Yea. For a neutral@observer. For Ghana every little bit they have is even more important

See what I@mean by perceived loss?

Yes. You are right

But it can be objectively cuantified also from a neutral standpoint in terms of monetary loss

Like after the war

Sure it can - just saying that is never a factor in deciding whether to go to war or not. Or almost never I should say. Because most times - not going to war saves more resources, yet that decision is not taken.

So something perceived to be bigger than the perceived loss is at play

Yes I totally agree! That is why argument 1 i believe works

Because as you said not going to war saves resources

Example. - revenge for 9/11 in going to afghan war and fear mongering leading to belief that US sovereign land is at risk if they don’t

And Democracies have more than dictatorships

That perceived gain was bigger than the perceived loss —— what would a neutral cost benefit analyzer conclude?