Category: Two Views

Categories
Opinions Two Views

Two Views: Convictions and Compromise

Can a Christian hold convictions strongly, yet at the same time be willing to compromise?

First of all, how we answer this question depends on who we’re talking about and what convictions we’re referring to. For instance, if this is a question about policy makers, my answer would be: please compromise. Yet, if we’re thinking of “mere” voters, I’m not so worried about staunchly adhering to a position. Or, if you’re an activist for social change, we might even encourage you to forgo compromise in order to make your point. In addition, we should think about what convictions are up for discussion. Are they convictions central to your outlook on the world, such that giving them up would be a breach in your integrity? In this case, bartering and compromise is inadvisable. However, if the convictions in question are peripheral to your worldview, we’d think you were inappropriately stubborn if you refused to barter and compromise.

abigailNow, caveats aside, I do have a general answer: Christians are not only capable of holding their convictions strongly and simultaneously compromising, but in addition, it is necessary that they do so. For better or for worse (for better, I suspect), we live in a culture that admits of multiple values and beliefs. Given this, a refusal on the part of Christians to compromise and barter is a kind of arrogance; it suggests that Christian perspectives ought to be imposed everywhere and privileged above all others. I find this attitude morally objectionable, but we can also object to this way of thinking on practical grounds.

           Imagine that Christians refused to compromise and barter. The result would be a political standstill involving two polarized groups. On one hand, we’d have a Christian group, insisting, “These are our convictions, we will not budge. Join our side or leave entirely.” And how will the other group respond? One thing is certain: the conglomerate of non-Christians is not going to acquiesce and adopt Christian convictions. In this case, the remaining option is for the groups to split. Each side will form its own state. Does this solve our problem? Well, no. You may have noticed that there isn’t one set of “Christian convictions” universally shared by Christians. In fact, there’s serious disagreement within Christianity, which implies that our Christian state would have to break down into denominational states. This could, of course, keep going. We weren’t compromising before; why start now? Why not reduce to states of individuals?

           I’m assuming that the above thought experiment points out the absurdity of a “never-compromise” position. But aren’t I being unfair? Perhaps compromise is a necessity in a pluralistic world, as I’ve argued above. The real question, then, is whether a general policy of compromise weakens our Christian convictions. Do we trivialize our own convictions when we set them aside in order to compromise?

      At this point I would defer to my earlier remarks about the nature of the conviction in question. In some cases, yes, I think we rightly hesitate over compromise. Nevertheless, in many other cases, I don’t think that compromise weakens my own convictions on a given subject. Moreover, I suspect that the value of compromise is a deeply held conviction for many of us. We’re interested in promoting our own flourishing, and we’re interested in promoting the flourishing of those around us. Compromise is one of the chief ways in which we express our desire for general well-being in the world. Thus, although we temporarily set aside some of our convictions when we compromise, the very act of compromise honors our conviction that it’s a good thing for diverse groups of people to get along.

Categories
Opinions Two Views

Two Views: Convictions and Compromise

Can a Christian hold convictions strongly, yet at the same time be willing to compromise?

Browsing over the lunches of my second grade classmates, I searched for food items that I thought my taste buds would find more satisfying than the bag of pretzels in front of me. Hmm … we had a small pack of Skittles (an option), a bag of baby carrots (too healthy), some Goldfish (those looked good, but their owner was a girl and girls still had cooties), and an array of other snacks, none of which measured up to my pretzels. So, I decided to eat my pretzels. Into my body they went, part of my body they became. Such is the way with convictions.

coryYour convictions define you. They are a part of you. This is always the case. But there is a hierarchy of convictions. What is it that differentiates the Christian from the non-Christian? It is her fundamental convictions, held by grace. The Christian could not and should not compromise or barter on issues challenging fundamental convictions. However, there is a time to compromise and barter on certain issues; history reminds us of the dangers of thinking otherwise.

The word conviction is derived from the Latin noun convictio, or verb convincere, which translates to “with conquer,” implying that holding convictions involves both a conqueror and a conquered. Holding convictions can do violence. But be not fooled: there is also danger for the disciple of Christ who is unwilling to hold convictions uncompromisingly.

In Romans 8:38-39, Paul says that he is convinced that nothing can separate “us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord.” He is convinced of this, he holds onto it with certainty. The Christian must have distinguishing fundamental convictions, rooted in the certainty of the love of Jesus, on which she is not willing to compromise or barter. There are also issues that the Christian should be willing to compromise and barter on in order that she does not compromise on a more fundamental conviction within the hierarchy.

Economic theory tells us that a free market economy with pure competition maintains allocative efficiency; that is, goods and services go where they are most desirable. In the same way, if we compromise and barter on all issues, we will end up holding whatever convictions we find most advantageous to us. The Christian should be uncomfortable with bartering on issues that conflict with fundamental convictions. To barter on these issues makes one’s convictions meaningless and turns one into a disciple of self. Instead, Jesus calls us to follow him and be his disciples. If we have no discipline in holding fundamental convictions uncompromisingly, then how are we to be disciples of Christ?

Look at the conquest and evangelization of the Americas that marginalized native peoples. Many people would see this as Christians who were unwilling to compromise and barter on issues with the native people. While I think this is true, I would argue that, at the heart of the matter, it was Christians who were willing to compromise on the fundamental convictions in order to use “evangelization” as a means to power and domination. Because it was advantageous, fundamental convictions were abused. This is the danger of a “free market economy of ideology.”

Because convictions make us who we are, we must never compromise on the fundamental convictions that are inseparable from our Christian identity. We have a table at which we are formed. No, it is not the second grade lunch table. At the Eucharist table we partake of the embodiment of our fundamental convictions. May we always hold to these uncompromisingly.

 

Categories
Opinions Two Views

Is Marriage the Greatest Tool for Lifting Families out of Poverty?

Would marriage help solve America’s poverty problems? Senator Marco Rubio seems to think so. Since the War on Poverty was declared 50 years ago there have been many theories and ideas about how to solve the problem of poverty. But Senator Marco Rubio has introduced a new theory. In a recent speech that addressed wealth inequality, Senator Rubio asserted that the “greatest tool to lift children and families out of poverty” is “marriage.” Senator Rubio keenly pointed out that marriage has become more and more unpopular over the past 50 years, but he believes that it is the greatest solution to the poverty problems that young people face.

So is marriage the ultimate tool that will fix America’s poverty problems?

jedNow before we begin to critique Senator Rubio’s bold statement, it is important to point out that in the Senator’s speech he cites some interesting data concerning the links between marriage and a college education. Indeed, the Senator showed that 64% of adults who have a college degree are married in contrast to only 47% of adults who only have a high school diploma.

Rubio’s theory goes like this: an individual’s economic future is dependent not only upon having money and a good income but is also heavily dependent upon social capital. Marriage and a strong family structure create an environment that manifests social capital. When an individual is raised in a family that invests in him/her socially then the person will be better equipped to handle the challenges in the future. Increases in marriage will cause increases in social capital, which will then increase an individual’s opportunities for economic success.

No one could refute the merits of this argument. But how does this help the millions of children and adults who were not raised in a home with married parents?

Getting married would not make an unemployed person become employed. Getting married would not miraculously increase a person’s low wages. Marriage would certainly have an impact on wealth inequality for future generations but it would not solve the poverty problem for people right now.

Another approach must be taken for those that are already entrapped by their poverty.

Right now, over 47 million Americans do not have health insurance, almost 50 million Americans are receiving food stamps and over 5 million Americans are currently receiving unemployment benefits. To make matters worse, it is estimated that over 15 percent of Americans are either unemployed, underemployed, or have completely given up on finding a job and have stopped looking for employment.

Lifting America out poverty will depend on whether lawmakers can find a way to increase employment, wealth, and wages. President Obama addressed this in his State of the Union speech. Ideas like raising the minimum wage to $10.10, extending unemployment benefits for an additional 14 weeks, and lowering fees and costs for businesses that hire minority workers would have an immediate impact on the lives of poor people right now.

There are key factors that will contribute to solving these problems that have nothing to do with being married. Having a job, having a job that is full time, having a job that pays a sustainable wage, and having a substantial income that provides for a person’s needs are all positive growth factors that contribute to a person’s ability to provide for himself. The common link between all of those factors is income. Having the ability to purchase, having the ability to make your own destiny, and having money at your disposal are all keys to freeing a person from the prison of poverty.

Categories
Opinions Two Views

Is Marriage the Greatest Tool for Lifting Families out of Poverty?

“Marriage” is a hard topic to broach in public debate, particularly in the context of economics. Many women, like myself, view it with a certain amount of trepidation when the subject comes up; the floodgates seem to be open to derogatory comments about “welfare queens” and single-motherhood, with poor women bearing the brunt of poorly-disguised scorn and highly insensitive gaffes. The conversation and ensuing media rigamorale can be so off-putting.

sarahHowever, it’s not a conversation that we should tune out. Some have suggested that the collapse of the married, two-parent family – the result of decades of rising divorce rates, out-of-wedlock births, and rising numbers of couples who do not marry – has resulted in much of the poverty we see today.

Indeed, Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL) recently made bold a speech on the fifty year anniversary of the War on Poverty in which he said “The truth is, the greatest tool to lift children and families from poverty is one that decreases the probability of child poverty by 82%. But it isn’t a government spending program. It’s called marriage.”

I would agree with Rubio, though with a few objections. To begin with, I don’t think marriage is a panacea to the current economic climate. (Granted, it’s not clear that in context of his speech that Rubio was assuming that it was.) I’m not even sure that it’s “the greatest” tool to combat poverty, either. That lends itself too much to a messianic definition of marriage, which I don’t think is appropriate. (It also seems to cheapen other equally important strategies to combat poverty.)

However, whether we like it or not, marriage and other social relationships do affect us and how rich and how poor we are. As Nick Schultz of the American Enterprise Institute points out in “Home Economics: the Consequences of a Changing Family Structure,” economics is not solely a study of numbers and monetary transactions. The most important economic questions of our time – rising income inequality, depressed wages, and slow economic growth – cannot be answered without touching upon our social institutions. If this is the case, marriage must be addressed.

Marriage delivers on a number of good things that can help relieve poverty. For one, it seems to  promote economic  mobilization. Our modern version of marriage has all the promise to provide a stable home for children, helping them succeed later in life. Though they acknowledge that the effects of marriage are not the only factor, a new Brookings Institution study makes the claim that “children born into continuously married family  [sic] have much better economic mobility than those in single parent families.” So, marriage seems to be good for the kids.

It’s also good for the adults. In the absence of marriage, single parents, particularly single moms, have to struggle working one or more job, along with the regular housework and childrearing.  According to a study undertaken by the Atlantic, poor women and single moms are more likely to have higher levels of anxiety, to live with regret, to stress about their kids, and rely on their family and friends for money. Marriage can relieve some of the pressure by turning one income into two.

Altogether, marriage creates a miniature economy that has the potential to benefit all parties and, in the best marriages, this is fueled by a love and warmth that cannot be reproduced elsewhere.

That being said, the solution to poverty in the United States can’t just be “get married,” nor should we expect that to be the solution for every individual. However, marriage is nonetheless an important aspect to resolving poverty and one of our greatest tools. Given its benefits, why don’t we encourage it enough? Let’s stop tuning out the conversation based on political rhetoric and start looking at marriage as the great thing that it is.

Categories
Opinions Two Views

Two Views: Is free-market capitalism good and just?

While I agree with Joe Gilligan’s point that free market capitalism has benefitted society through encouraging innovation and thereby increasing the wealth and living standards for societies as a whole, it is not immediately apparent whether these accomplishments classify capitalism as good and just. The statistic that Americans have a higher median income and standard of living than Swedes merely demonstrates that free market capitalism, as compared to socialism, may be a more effective route to materialist ends. In order to take the next step and assert that capitalism is then good, one would need to assume that maximal wealth is the good to be pursued by an economic system. However, this would be to assume what capitalism already asserts: that the ultimate goal is maximization of profit. In order to avoid circular reasoning, the goodness of capitalism cannot be analyzed on the basis of resulting wealth. Fulfillment of materialist objectives, such as the effective production of goods and the increase of societal wealth, is a significant merit for an economic system, but does not provide adequate basis for qualifying capitalism as good and just. The standards of what is good and just for an economic system should be defined in ethical rather than purely economic terms.

The traditional ethical defense of capitalism is on the basis of freedom. According to Amartya Sen in Development as Freedom, while efficiency and the ability to improve living standards are important reasons to maintain free markets, “the more immediate case for the freedom of market transaction lies in the basic importance of that freedom itself.” Though we might dispute how freedom should be defined or realized, most of us probably agree that freedom is intrinsically valuable, and the promotion of freedom is an acceptable basis for asserting that free market capitalism is “good.”

The issue to be explored, then, is to what extent the theoretical good of free market capitalism—freedom—is actually realized in capitalist societies. In this context, the attainment of individual freedom will also be my criteria for measuring whether the system is just.

Perhaps the issue of greatest concern for individual freedom in capitalist societies is immense (and growing) wealth and income disparity. The Gini coefficient, which measures the income inequality within a particular group, has risen enormously within countries with capitalist systems over the past quarter-century. Since China began capitalist market reforms in 1979, its baseline standard of living has increased considerably, but its Gini coefficient has increased from about 28 points (marking relatively equal economic distribution) in 1991 to over 47 points (marking gross inequality) in 2012.

injusticeWhile economic inequality is not necessarily inherently unjust, it may still pose a significant barrier to individual freedom, thereby perpetuating injustice. Individuals with less money have less freedom to act in various areas of life, for instance to access education or healthcare. Individuals with less money also have less power to influence what happens in society. This is particularly true in circumstances where wealth may literally buy political influence, a common occurrence in countries such as China. To the extent that the gross economic inequality associated with capitalism limits freedom, it is unjust.

Defenders of capitalism might respond by suggesting that the underlying structure of capitalism is just, however, because it rewards individual effort and achievement with economic success. But basing economic justice solely on individual effort mistakenly assumes that individuals begin on level playing fields with equal capabilities to succeed. A recent World Bank study showed that 80% of variability in a person’s income is accounted for by country of birth and parental income level. The remaining 20% is primarily affected by sex, race, and other variables over which persons have no control; individual effort has a very small impact on economic success.  Even in capitalist societies where there might be a stronger relationship between effort and success than exists globally, there is no question that factors over which an individual has no control significantly influence his or her life success or lack thereof, economic and otherwise. Although capitalism is structured individualistically, in reality, the “individuals” who take part in capitalism are shaped by communities.

So am I suggesting that free market capitalism is not good and just? Perhaps this is not the most relevant question. When evaluating capitalism, we must consider it in relation to alternate economic systems. Other systems might come closer to the ideal of the good and the just in some regards, but there are always tradeoffs. While free market capitalism cannot be unqualifiedly characterized as good and just, it may still be the best alternative. However, we must be careful to recognize the limitations of capitalism so that we can be open to pursuit of the good and just through whatever measures may be most effective rather than limiting ourselves to a single framework.

Categories
Opinions Two Views

Two Views: Is free-market capitalism good and just?

Each day we participate in the most just and free market system in the world. The iPhone we bought to talk to friends, the Pepsi we drank to keep us awake to study, the paycheck from work, are an integrative part of the free market.  Dinesh D’Souza, former President of The King’s College noted free market “capitalism satisfied the Christian demand for an institution that channels selfish human desire toward the betterment of society.”

enterpriseAuthor Michael Novak documents the origin of free enterprise to the Catholic’s creation of Canon Law, which led to a common market and law system by establishing “jurisdictions of empire, nation, chartered city, guild [for] merchants, and entrepreneurs. It also provided local and regional arbitrators, jurists, negotiators, and judges.  Now gears for windmills, harnesses for beasts of burden, ocean-going ship rudders, eyeglasses, and ironwork” were invented with the free flow of trade and ideas.  Later the “Protestant Work Ethic” would bring ferocity for free markets documented in Max Weber’s 1905 book, The Protestant Ethics and the Spirit of Capitalism.  Book critic Tom Butler-Bowdon states Weber makes a compelling argument that Protestants made free markets worthy and morally just because “of the spirit of progress; the love of hard work for its own sake; the orderliness, punctuality and honesty; and the belief in a higher calling.”

As history tells us, the free enterprise system has been the catalyst for the greatest strides in innovation, social mobility, and the standard of living.  In a free enterprise system, allocation of goods through trade is not an exploitation of buyers by sellers, rather a mutual agreement of value between two consenting parties.  However, many of today’s liberal-progressives argue free enterprise is unethical resulting in a mal-distribution of wealth.  They claim markets cause the rich to get richer and the poor to get poorer.  However, history has shown societies prospered from free market expansion which created a better standard of living for all income classes. When President Kennedy cut taxes for the upper class the economy blossomed.  Kennedy remarked, “A rising tide lifts all boats.”   According to economist Arthur Laffer, the US’s “purchasing power of the median income family rose to $54,061 in 2004, an $8,228 real increase since 1980.  The middle class is not disappearing…it is getting richer.”  The poor have also benefited from these booms.  A Treasury study on income mobility in the US from 1996 to 2004 found the bottom 20% of wage earners experienced a 109% (inflation adjusted) increase in income.

Critics of free enterprise often cite Sweden as a model of how socialism can work.  Having a mother from Sweden and having visited many times, I know Sweden is a lovely country, but if Sweden is socialism’s best argument, then the cases against socialism are many.  It is true Sweden has relatively no poverty.  On the other hand, economist Milton Friedman noted, “That is interesting because in America, among Scandinavians, we have no poverty either.”  Likewise less than 7% of Swedes and Swedish Americans live in poverty.  However, the similarities end there considering how wealthy American Swedes are compared to their Swedish counterparts.  A Swede’s average income per year is $36,600 while an American Swede’s average income per year is $56,900 according to author Kevin Williamson.  A typical Swedish family would live in an 800 square foot apartment and own one car, while a typical Swedish-American family would own a 3000 square foot home and own two cars.

In addition, according to Socialism by Williamson, Sweden’s GDP per capita was 20% higher than that of the US in 1980, but in 2001 not only was the US’s GDP per capita higher, it was higher by an overwhelming 56%.  Sweden also has more social rigidity than the US.  Ironically, America is more egalitarian than Sweden.  While income may be more equally distributed in Sweden, the US has distributed wealth more equally.  Income and wealth are correlated in the US by high paying careers or entrepreneurship.  In Sweden you are more likely wealthy because you inherited it.

The free enterprise system has benefited all economic classes and mankind’s leap in innovation, social mobility, and our standard of living.  On the other hand, collectivist societies have stifled innovation, while creating a rigid social mobility, driving down a lower standard of living.  President Ronald Reagan once said, “Socialists ignore the side of man that is the spirit. They can provide you shelter, fill your belly with bacon and beans, treat you when you’re ill, all the things guaranteed to a prisoner or a slave. They don’t understand that we also dream.” Similarly, Timothy 1:7 states, “For God hath not given us the spirit of fear; but of power, and of love, and of a sound mind.”  The choice is clear.  We must continue to dream.

Categories
Opinions Two Views

Two Views: Would Widespread Economic and Political Freedom Create Global Peace?

Among a certain subset of people in the world, there is a strong belief that the primary requirement for “world peace”—that nebulous phrase used by politicians, college freshmen, and contestants on the Miss America pageant alike—is freedom. Primarily what they are talking about in these instances is political and economic freedom guaranteed by individual countries. I am not one of those people, and this is why.

2view-sarahsIt is important to note that a given group of people with political freedom depends largely on the values that they hold. For example, in 2005 Hezbollah was elected to power in southern Lebanon. Considered a terrorist organization by the United States government, this is hardly the type of political party to promote peace in the Middle East. The political arm of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, the so-called “Freedom and Justice Party”, was also elected by a large majority to power in 2012. (Subsequently, President Morsi was, along with other members of the Muslim Brotherhood, removed from power and charged with murder). While both of these parties were elected through fair elections within the last ten years, neither of them hold values which would increase global peace.

The other freedom suggested as a requirement for world peace is economic freedom. This is more promising. Probably the best example of an international free trade arrangement is the EU (European Union). No country in the EU has gone to war with another EU member country—this is quite impressive, especially considering the previous history of the continent. This phenomenon extends beyond the European Union to democratic countries in general. Researchers theorize that the reason for this is that in a country with an open economic market, it becomes unnecessary and unprofitable for countries to go to war as resources are easily distributed between countries. War is no longer a necessity to re-distribute scarce resources but a distraction from more profitable methods of production.

On the other hand, it is possible that the more or less widespread global peace we in the democratic nations of the world have been experiencing is a fluke in the annals of history. (More or less, because a majority of countries in the world are currently or have recently been involved in some type of armed conflict). The reasons that global peace might not be sustainable even with widespread global economic and political freedom come down to the age-old reasons for conflict which currently democratic and economically free governments have at the moment been able to avoid—land and the resources associated with land.

Although the world as a whole is potentially able to support a significantly larger population than it currently is doing, the essential problem is that the largest percentage of increase in population will occur in regions that are less able to support a large population, while a decline is projected to occur in regions more able to support a larger population. For example, the latest UN projections predict the population of Africa will double, while that of Europe will decline by 14%.

Historically, a frequent source of conflict is a large population of young people with less access to resources. The inequality of consumption globally is well established—statistics such as, the 12% of the world’s population which lives in the United States and Europe accounts for 60% of global private consumption, while the third of global population which lives in South Asia and Sub-Saharan Africa accounts for only 3.2%.

Not only is inequality widespread and the global population rapidly increasing, there is evidence that water will in the quite near future become a resource lacking in many areas of world. Less than one percent of the water on the planet is usable for humans and animals. According to the UN, by 2030 nearly half of the world will be living under areas of high water stress.

My purpose in stating all these statistics is not to scare anyone or to present an overly pessimistic view of the world. And I do believe that economic and political freedoms are beneficial and even necessary for a country to live happily and well. But they are not enough. Freedom is what you make of it, and conflict is not something that can always be prevented.

Categories
Opinions Two Views

Two Views: Would Widespread Economic and Political Freedom Create Global Peace?

Though I would agree with Sarah Slater’s point that global peace could never be entirely accomplished due to the presence of scarce resources and competing cultural values, it is hard to negate the evidence that democracies – systems in which political freedom is the foundation – rarely go to war against each other. It is also hard to ignore that economies that practice economic freedom and are increasingly dependent on each other also find it difficult to go to war. For these reasons, it seems fair to conclude that the expansion of political and economic freedoms contributes to domestic and global peace, even if they may not resolve the entire issue.

2view-sarahhThese arguments ultimately rest on cost-benefit analysis. As Immanuel Kant, one of the early writers on global peace, wrote in 1795, wars do not frequently benefit the ordinary people in a country. Often, citizens have to bear the load of war, “having to fight, having to pay the costs of war from their own resources, having painfully to repair the devastation war leaves behind, and, to fill up the measure of evils, load themselves with a heavy national debt that would embitter peace itself and that can never be liquidated on account of constant wars in the future.” In a republic or a democracy where citizens are free to exercise political control, it would make sense that they try to refrain from going to war as much as possible. Political freedoms, then, become safety valves that citizens may exercise against their politicians when conflicts begin to get overheated.

Theoretically, Kant’s proposition makes sense, but how does it play out in recent history?

Political freedom – by which we mean the ability of the public to engage in a political process without being coerced or compelled in any way – is a relatively recent phenomenon in history and the phenomenon only took hold in the past 50 or 60 years. According to scholar Michael Mandelbaum, “In the second half of the twentieth century … democracies consistently preferred butter to guns” due to their political choices which reflected their preferences for social welfare programs than to foreign activity and wars. Even the United States, which has acquired the reputation of bellicosity “was subject to the same popular reservations about and objections to war” in the twentieth century that was present in other countries, albeit at a smaller scale.

Increased globalization and the dependency between economies that practice economic freedom also create situations in which the desire for peace outweighs the desire for conflict. Conflict can interrupt trade between nations, the production of goods, and the transactions between consumers and producers which encourages these economies to refrain from war. Again, this argument rests on a cost-benefit analysis between the costs of war and the benefits of peace. As Sarah Slater noted in the previous article, no European state in the European Union has attacked another – a miracle if we examine Europe’s recent history.

We should look at expanding political and economic freedom as a positive force in expanding the capacity of people to behave nonviolently, but we shouldn’t assume that it is a guarantee that people will take the opportunity of these freedoms. As Nobel Prize-winning economist Amartya Sen wrote concerning democracy in Development as Freedom, “Democracy does not serve as an automatic remedy of ailments as quinine works to remedy malaria. The opportunity it opens has to be positively grabbed in order to achieve the desired effect. This is … a basic feature of freedoms in general – much depends on how freedoms are actually exercised.” While political and economic freedom may indeed contribute to global peace, it still depends on what people make of it.

In conclusion, I do not believe that there is a one-size-fits-all solution to the issue of global peace and that if only we could snap our fingers and declare that all countries were politically and economically free, then the world would be immediately at one. This approach ignores cultural and historical conditions and, as we have seen in the Balkans, the transition from an authoritarian government to a system that promotes political and economic freedom can be a violent one. (The current state of affairs in many Middle Eastern countries today would be other examples.) By the same token, however, the evidence exists that, in the long run, these expansions may indeed increase global peace and contribute to the capacity of people to behave nonviolently.