To solve these problems one needs as much an understanding of politics as an understanding of man - and the one cannot be derived from the other.

If we gather more and more data and establish more and more associations, however, we will not finally find that we know something. We will simply end up having more and more data and larger sets of correlations.

Asking who won a given war, someone has said, is like asking who won the San Francisco earthquake. That in war there is no victory but only varying degrees of defeat is a proposition that has gained increasing acceptance in the twentieth century.

Is it capitalism or states that must be destroyed in order to get peace, or must both be abolished?

War most often promotes the internal unity of each state involved. The state plagued by internal strife may then, instead of waiting for the accidental attack, seek the war that will bring internal peace.

Then what explains war among states? Rousseau's answer is really that war occurs because there is nothing to prevent it.

In a zero-sum game, the problem is entirely one of distribution, not at all one of production.