Diffuse Rash With Well-separated Bumps

FOREVER WAR Power politics and instruction pack

The central difference between the ideas of liberal tradition regarding realistic based on the limits of cooperation .

According to liberal ideas men seek to maximize their benefits .

According to the realistic ideas to maximize profits is secondary. The first is to ensure its own survival .

This has direct consequences on the possibilities of cooperation and peaceful exchange. According to the liberal theory of international relations that dominated after the first world war, the warring nations would cease once the economic barriers between countries disappear and generate interdependence economic. At that point, the war would stop countries simply because they should not , ie it would not be beneficial .

According to the realist theory nations not only think only of profits. The first is to ensure survival. It is therefore to see gains in relative terms , ie, compared with earnings from other countries. If another country has too many gains in relative terms it becomes a threat because you can use these resources to attack the nation which previously traded. This triggers defensive measures in country A. These measures are seen as a threat in the country B which in turn take action. Thus begins the familiar arms race.

know that both countries co-operating with the highest profits is therefore irrelevant. The uncertainty of not knowing the intentions other, forcing both countries to concentrate on survival. This clashes with the cooperation, because no matter solely for self gain, it is important that the neighboring nation no greater benefits because it could use to attack.

For realists, international politics is anarchic because there is no supranational authority with sufficient force to control all nations. Thus nothing prevents an attack on another state.

For many liberals, a typical example of the triumph of market forces over the forces of survival is the European Union. For millennia, Europe was literally a battlefield. Peace in which he lives since the end of World War II, is therefore justified by the growing economic interdependence between former enemy nations.

However, for European peace realistic explained by a decisive factor: NATO and the fact that since the end of World War II, Europe has been in the sphere of U.S. influence. This crucial fact, brand new in the history of Europe has allowed European countries cooperate. That is, European policy is not anarchic because it is in fact dominated by a higher power (United States).

This idea that people or companies are unable to cooperate unless they are subjugated by a higher power (which is strong), comes largely from Hobbes's Leviathan.

In a lawless environment, the common denominator is mistrust: I know that there are no rules and therefore can attack my neighbor. I know that the two would be better if they cooperate. My neighbor also is confident that cooperation would be better. Rationally we both know we'd be better if they live together and cooperate in peace. But we're not sure the other like-minded. We do not know what the other thinks, but we do know is that nothing prevents attack my neighbor. So you better go to the store and bought me a 38. My neighbor finds out I bought a 38 and buy a 45. The type of sample to warn: do not fuck with me. I got scared even more and I get an AK 45. And so, eventually violence broke out.