Hacker News new | comments | show | ask | jobs | submit login

Not really. When people say 'democracy', they generally mean modern states with universal suffrage. They don't mean to encompass "ancient greek states where only wealthy native men could vote" nor "enlightenment-era Polish noble republics". In this argument, I find that it's the people who claim any system that has more than one voter to be a 'democracy' as the ones bringing in the semantic ambiguity.

The spirit of the argument "there is no(t much) war between democracies" is that "when everyone gets a say, they generally don't choose to march off to war". Given the spirit of the argument, to then define democracy as forms of government with quite limited voter eligibility, is somewhat intentionally missing the point.

Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | DMCA | Apply to YC | Contact