Paul Buchheit's myths of democracy, pacifism, and the environmental footprint.
Having read Paul Buchheit's article on the myth of democratic pacifism and the democratic footprint (Paul Buchheit, "T he Myth of Democratic Pacifism - The Footprints of Democracies", Counterpunch, Wednesday, June 27, 2007 ), I have had some difficulty digesting his arguments about democracy, the environment, and money. His conclusion, however, says quite a bit more than I think he intended.
Buccheit says that "democracies are correlated with wealth and prosperity" but it is well known that correlations do not prove cause and effect. He does however put an "if" into the correlation and then touches on another significant item, that our lifestyle, labelled "democracy" here, "will place a greater ecological demand on our earth unless overall consumption is reduced." Earlier presentations in his argument indicate the "democracies" use 180 per cent of their resources - a rather impossible statistic as you cannot consume more than you have, unless....
If that over-consumption is tied to the GNP statistics, would it not indicate that "democracies" are not truly democratic, but by being associated so strongly with the supposed perfect market of neoliberalism and free trade, it appears that they are doing much better at wealth creation. Where does the extra 80 percent over the 100 per cent come from? Exactly where Buchheit says it comes from - over-consumption - over-consumption of global resources that belong to other peoples and nations.