"A is false. A is actually A. Change my mind"
-
-
-
How do YOU define the balance of power (saving you a response)?
-
Sorry for the triple-tweet. Almost all emergent phenomena age the result of complex agent-based systems, see trite examples such as bird flocking and crosswalk stripes.
-
the core ideas of balance of power as I understand it are...
-
a) states will act independently to maintain equilibrium, because absent a severe enough imbalance that one might achieve hegemony, maintaining equilibrium is optimal for all participants individually
-
and b) this disincentivizes war, which is presumed to be employed chiefly to fulfill hegemonic ambition, but balancing incentives function like a poison pill
-
but based on reading both of these assumptions seem completely wrong. rather than an emergent property of states, the few times a "balance" seems to persist...
-
...are compacts between particular *men* with particular shared aims, and once those men exit the stage, or come to distrust each other, the whole thing falls apart
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
not multipolar, tenochtitlan was a hegemonic power
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
"coordinated agreement" always takes place against a background of bargaining power and strategic constraints. that any 2 agents can make an agreement depends holding the other ~ (n^2)/2 dyads constant. (in fact, this follows trivially from the folk theorem)
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Like others here, I don’t see what you’re really trying to get at. When potentially hostile leaders perceive that their expected future situation is better with peace than through conflict, we call it a “balance of power”.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Game theory gives you a lot of insight into which coordinated agreements are stable and which aren't, though.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Completely agree. Balance of power is already a zone of coordination, it is actively maintained by some group.
-
You might be interested in these pieces Competitive Landscape https://medium.com/@samo.burja/empire-theory-part-1-competitive-landscape-b0b1b3bbce9e … Power Dynamics https://medium.com/@samo.burja/empire-theory-part-ii-power-dynamics-864b9eef4200 … They describe my current understanding of the expansion and contraction of such zones of coordination.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Distinction without a difference imo. The individuals recognize that offensive is undesirable while a balance exists and that maintaining a balance secures them, on the other side, the balance requires such individuals to maintain it
-
I.e. The balance of power system in Europe collapsed in 1914 not because it was fake, but because the leaders who valued it enough to maintain it did not exist
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
It may evolve into that, but I think that naturally a balance is struck between powers. After a few generations, like any system, it is coopted.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Do we live in a multipolar world? The US has such a massive military it pretty much forces world peace on their terms. It also feels awkward to talk about individuals having such power in western democracies. Theoretically, there are checks and balances to limit that, no?
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.