LOUNGE all new asksnapzu ideasforsnapzu newtribes interesting pics videos funny technology science technews gaming health history worldnews business web research entertainment food living internet socialmedia mobile space sports photography nature animals movies culture travel television finance music celebrities gadgets environment usa crime politics law money justice psychology security cars wtf art google books lifetips bigbrother women apple kids recipes whoa military privacy education facebook medicine computing wildlife design war drugs middleeast diet toplists economy fail violence humor africa microsoft parenting dogs canada neuroscience architecture religion advertising infographics sex journalism disaster software aviation relationships energy booze life japan ukraine newmovies nsa cannabis name Name of the tribe humanrights nasa cute weather gifs discoveries cops futurism football earth dataviz pets guns entrepreneurship fitness android extremeweather fashion insects india northamerica
  • MAGISTERLUDI
    +2
    @Jack -

    Of course, I doubt anyone can guarantee 100% security, but to say security is a useless exercise for that reason is nonsense.

  • Jack
    +2
    @MAGISTERLUDI -

    I would say that restricting trade and travel is against Natural Law.

  • MAGISTERLUDI
    +2
    @Jack -

    Would be your prerogative.

  • MAGISTERLUDI
    +2
    @Jack -

    Correlations for most anything can be found if you look for them, does not establish fact(s).

  • Jack
    +2
    @MAGISTERLUDI -

    It isn't correlations they are talking about, it is predictive power. Restricted trade leads to war, while vigorous trade prevents it.

  • MAGISTERLUDI (edited 3 years ago)
    +2
    @Jack -

    All reliant on their correlations of past history. Hell, one could show causation(s) from anything if so inclined. Of course integrated trade would be a factor, and less of incentive, that's a no-brainer. But to state it's a barrier is misleading. Is/was trade relevant to ISIS, was it to Hitler, Castro, Stalin, Mao, Ho Chi Minh, et al. In some cases trade may have became a later issue , but not the reason(s) for the initial aggression(s). Ownership, plain and simple would most obvious be the greater incentive, not trade imbalance.

    • Jack
      +1
      @MAGISTERLUDI -

      Yes, trade was extremely important to those people, and economic issues are what most people attribute the rise of Nazism and the fall of Communism to.