It's not perfectly applicable, but while reading this post that old haiku came to mind

Friend, that open mouth
   Reveals your
   Whole interior...
Silly hollow frog!

anon.

This is the bit that jogged my memory:

Arnold's got a "non-pacifist syllogism" to counter my "pacifist syllogism". I think all of Arnold's premises are wrong or misleading. Point-by-point:

Premise 1: There will always be individuals and groups whose comparative advantage is plunder and extortion. Call them pirates.

For any conceivable activity there is always, by definition, someone with a comparative advantage in it. So far, so good. However, this does not imply that every activity will actually be performed! Someone, somewhere has a comparative advantage in making silent movies, but that does not imply that anyone will pursue this occupation or continue producing silent movies. Similarly, someone, somewhere, has a comparative advantage in hunting bears with his bare hands, but it doesn't mean anyone will actually do so. This point underlies my claim that wealth turns men into cowards: Rich people rarely hunt bears with their bare hands, or risk their lives attacking other people.

Plunder and extortion are profitable. Silent movies and bear wrestling are not. If they were, we would indeed have entrepreneurs exploiting those niches. Rich people may not like to soil themselves, but rich is a relative term. It's a risk/reward calculation. For enough reward even the rich will roll in the mud.

Premise 2: Private property ultimately depends on the willingness and ability to use force to defend it. Capitalism that is not backed by the force of arms cannot survive. Peace only prevails where and when the absolute military advantage of the armed capitalists is sufficient to suppress the pirates.

This sounds like solid hard-headed Hobbesianism, but again, it's deeply misleading. In the modern world, how many wars are fought for material gain, anyway? Leaving aside a few Third World countries with valuable natural resources, modern wars don't pay. The history of post-war Germany is a beautiful example of the deep lesson that it is now cheaper to pay for goods than fight for them.

All wars are fought for material gain. That's not the only reason they are fought, and war rhetoric often emphasizes "nobler" goals, but it is the expectation of increased reward, or reduced risk, that truly drives war. It may be that a nation as a whole has more costs than benefits, but some individuals and groups within nations profit handsomely, and take their pay in several currencies. It's just silly to confuse national outcomes with those of elites who control nations.

All we need for world peace, then, is for (a) People to recognize that war doesn't pay and/or (b) Get so rich that they're scared to fight even if they falsely believe that it does pay.

And if this seems Utopian, look at the EU. The citizens of dozens of countries that fought like mad for centuries have settled into a peaceful bourgeois existence. (And if you want to bet that peace on the Continent is temporary, I'm open to another bet).

The EU would behave very differently if the US did not have their backs. The US has their backs because it is profitable to do so. It's unlikely to happen soon, but it would be interesting to see the US withdraw and let the euro pansies haul their own water again. I expect that the Russians still have some cards up their sleeves.

The plain fact is that economic progress and international peace have long been expanding hand-in-hand. All I'm doing is projecting this progress into the future. Arnold almost seems to be denying that this progress is possible.

Arnold is a little more aware of world affairs. Humans remain human. They may fight their wars with computer viruses and bots, while comfortably seated far from the front lines, or so they imagine, but they will still make war. All that is required is for it to be possible to profit from war. If it can happen, it will. Pay attention.