this is without even pondering whether it is ideal or effective by any means

Stateless nation isn't possible?
What is: Euskadi
What is: Punjab
What is: Uyghur people
What is: The Kurds
@EyeKanSpel

A nation is not the same thing as a nation-state. They're separate terms.

"na·tion

ˈnāSH(ə)n/

noun

a large aggregate of people united by common descent, history, culture, or language, inhabiting a particular country or territory."

All four of those fit that definition.

In contrast with
"na·tion-state

noun

a sovereign state whose citizens or subjects are relatively homogeneous in factors such as language or common descent."

ex. Germany is a nation-state but Spain is not, because several nations inhabit it.

Including Euskadi.

No. There will always be someone superior, and that person will naturally have an accumulation of resources. These resources will be sought after by subordinates and a fee will be needed. This fee will be either in the form of a price, for a transaction, or a tax, for a service.

Africa

https://youtu.be/JNvE2UqRWRg

@εïз irma εïз Those are societies, not nations

When we think of a Nation, borders, government and international representation are involved

it depends on your definition of a state

to me, a state is a governing body which holds a monopoly on violence (a generally accepted definiton)

in most communes there is some sort of organization, whether official or unofficial, which makes decisions, consisting of either one leader or of a democratic sort of thing

to me that seems like a micro state

they hold a monopoly on violence in the commune and they make decisions using it

absolute anarchy can not exist within groups of people

because a hierarchy or order will inevitably develop

"stateless society" is an oxymoron

It's like asking if a society without people is a society

@Der Alte Fritz That's one of my favorite Johnny Rebel songs

@EyeKanSpel No. Just false lmao

Those are literally examples of nations.

"na·tion

ˈnāSH(ə)n/

noun

a large aggregate of people united by common descent, history, culture, or language, inhabiting a particular country or territory."

Since you didn't read it the first time. You can't change the definitions of words.

Political scientists and anthropologists would both agree to that definition and that the examples I gave were nations.

So I'm not sure what you're trying to get at.

your definition of nation is right but they arent really a "stateless society"

they are a nation of people living under the state of another group of people

just because the state isnt their own doesnt mean theyre stateless

So they don't have their own state. That means they're a stateless society.

...no, because they still live within the confines of a state

This is just the definition decided by academia.

besides that, as far as i know, all of the ones you listed have their own governing systems for their own group

even if they didnt live under a state that wasnt their own, this government would fill its place

You're disagreeing with definitions made for the purpose of utility on the basis of semantics. Despite being flat out wrong you're pissing up the wrong.

tree

And my connection is fucked right now so I'll be back in a few minutes.

I'm back. Here's why you're wrong:
1) The definition simply disagrees with you.
2) The definition was created for utility, not under any principles. Nations without their *own* states to control do not fully control their destiny: ex. Rohingya, the Kurds, and the Basque in past centuries where they've repeatedly revolted and even recently with ETA.
3) If your definition would be applied, there would be no "stateless nations" at all because the vast majority of the Earth, save a few Pacific islands, is controlled by a state. You would destroy all utility of the term and that's why it exists in the first place.

And it turns out there's actually an entire article on stateless nations on Wikipedia, which I'm sure could outline it nicely for you. I haven't checked but I'm sure all of the examples I've listed are there.

hes saying that all of these nations of people which you have listed live in countries with states you mong

women

hes arguing semantics because you are

I understand exactly what he's saying and I'm saying why he's wrong.

He has to argue semantics on principle of the definition because the definition he arbitrated is incorrect.

But if all you have to say is "lol u mong" then???

ive honestly got no idea what youre trying to argue any more, are you trying to say that these distinct ethnic groups within other countries are all "stateless societies"?

They're stateless nations. My original disagreement was that the Eye dude said a stateless nation doesn't exist because he was under the impression nation necessitated statehood.

Deicze thinks that just because a 'stateless nation' may have their own autonomous or even non-autonomous region within a country as a division that makes them not stateless.

they're only stateless because they're the subjects of a bigger state

Correct.

and he is right

he lives in one of them, mate

Cool. But that doesn't make him right.

Which stateless nation exactly? I bet it's comparable to Rohingya or the Kurds.

@Reeves !Musicbot

Where they're subject to virtual genocide and can't do anything about it, which is the basis of the term. that by being a subject to another state, they are stateless and have no control over their destiny or independence.

sami nation

i think?

👌 😂 👌

yes

Minority does not necessarily imply stateless nation. Sami, being indigenous, are kind of a grey area. Stateless nation semi-implies that at one point they were a state.

That's why it's a grey area.

we were a state

🤔

The Sami were?

yes

havent been for centuries

but we were

uhhhh which state

As far as I know the Sami are indigenous people that never organized themselves into a state but I may be wrong.

plenty of little tribal ones

Tribes aren't states.

believe at one point pre-conquest we were mostly unified

yes

what the hell do you mean tribes arent states?

Your definitions are all over the place.

an area under the leadership of 1 man with a fighting force and laws isnt a state?

Which means any disagreement ultimately boils down to semantics.

"a nation or territory considered as an organized political community under one government.
"Germany, Italy, and other European states""

You can take it up with an expert over whether or not the Sami were a state but I guarantee you 100% of them will agree it wasn't.

But that's just one example, and because it's an indigenous people it's an imperfect one.

Not at all the same as the Basque.

what the hell are you talking about?

Which state did the Sami organize themselves into?

lots of different ones

Lots of tribes you mean. Not organized under one government.

So it's settled, it wasn't a state.

kildens, nords, sani

how is that not a state?

It's not organized under one government. It's several tribes, not with a contiguous border I might add.

just because the state didnt include every single sami means it isnt a state?

Or a politically recognized government.

yeah, some of them did have borders

not all were nomadic

specifically not the southern or western ones

Internationally respected borders, coordinated by a single government? If not, then no state.

Your definition of state is exceedingly generous.

i know it is futile trying to argue with you

but i cant help but wonder where you get this shit

Westphalian sovereignty, the accepted rule for defining states for centuries, is apparently meaningless to you.

try to find some borders which were universally agreed upon in the early middle ages

The early middle ages were actually pretty universally agreed upon. Even though it was personal fiefdoms it was all on paper.

you cant describe historical states by "internationally recognized"

especially not feudal ones

But they were.

that is ridiculous

Ownership was tenuous, but it was there.

I'm sorry that you disagree with me but if you're ready to offer a counterargument at any time I'm ready.

Even the French, an extremely decentralized collection of ducal fiefdoms, was recognized a single polity in the middle ages.

Subdivided into the Occitans, Burgundians, etc. as regional subdivisions.

Because it was known the actual French king's authority in France was weak.

But all of the ducal states paid homage regardless.

But this is, of course, pre-Westphalian sovereignty. The same diplomacy applied but not the way it was agreed upon.

By Westphalian rules France was a state, the Sami were not.

Alright if that's all you have I have shit to do. Cya.

BTFO'd speechless 👌 😂 👌 💯

A stateless society is possible, but only in isolation from a unified state. They simply can’t compete. They get crushed. At this point it’s not possible in most places on earth. I guess in the distant future when space travel and terraforming technology has dramatically improved, people could travel far away where they wouldn’t be bothered. I’m not sure how long one could be sustained though.

No because as human we strive to form groups and identities. Based on shared attributes location being one

@everyone 🔖 Daily Question
What is everyone's opinion of trump?

Good guy

don't care

doahnald BLumppf = SHITLER

Alright

He hasn't built the fucking wall yet though

i don't like him

Best we got

but that surprises no one

based nincompoop

All hail God emperor trump

Smart guy here

I think he's just an israeli/1% shill

one specific thing i don't like about him is that he pisses off our allies

except the israelis yeah

trump's shitty as a person but good policies I'll say that

Imo if Israel thinks they have a right to Palestinian land, they shouldn't have America's support and they need to fend for themselves.

not bad than Obama

He is doing well from my point of vision, despite of some mistakes

"not bad than obama"

"my point of vision"

"despite of some mistakes"

?

😡 🔫

What? @Josh42A

isn't grammar nazi a thing

Why does she?

@21tagtmeiern yes

NSA activities during the Obama administration grew a lot

I think obama was more imperialistic than Bush

Build the wall

@Josh42A depends on the executive order

Best president we've ever had

no one thinks that

correction

no historian thinks that

History is controlled by the left

ofc they wouldnt

Fuck that baboon Obama

and now we're doing unprovoked racism cool

Absolutely not @Deleted User

its funny

all you brainlets are so stupid

I'll rephrase for my easily offended buddies with power

I respectfully dislike former president Obama as a whole

<:HyperLmao:459545665517780993>

buddy*

it's one

ahahaha drumpf

oBumfa = communist

***Very stable genius***

I like Trump a lot. I’m in support of most of what he does. I was heavily dedicated to his campaign in 2016 and I’ve already begun preparations for 2020. I really appreciate how he stands up to the corrupt media, which is a group that I hate with a passion. I wish he would tell Israel to fuck off too. And Saudi Arabia.

I wish I shared your optimism

I think he just cucks for Jews now

He does cuck for Jews when it comes it Israel. That’s undeniable.

So long as we get the WALL I'll still be on the Trump Train but he's running out of time

I agree. We needed that wall years ago. It may already be the too late. It needs to be up ASAP.

Peter Brimelow was on TV years and years ago being interviewed about the southern border and it was astonishing. He was describing how locals would be driving to the border so they could use their headlights and car mounted floodlights to support border agents.

True patriots.

liberals, marxists and anyone who lives in their own constructed world rather than the real one needs to be beaten with this

Reminds me of the old saying. If all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. @Casey#0795

@Deleted User me and irma pissed him off

Pissed who off @Josh42A ?

casey

He just messaged me. That’s the way things go sometimes.

(((casey)))

Lol I didn’t know him very well. He’s in a Discord I drop archives in. He SEEMED like he’d fit in. Guess not.

he couldnt handle the fact that conservative Americans are right wing

wait

hol up

so you be sayin that uh he be sayin dat uh conservatives are LEFT wing?

muhfuggin grabs dick uhhh republicans are pro-welfare

I posted a screenshot in <#452955265961164800>

is he wrong though?

I mean if you are a post modernist no

I guess he thought conservatives weren’t right wing enough.

irma is gonna get mad at me saying that though

It appears my superiority has caused some controversy.

lol

I like Trump for the most part. He needs to build the wall and stop all the unnecessary foreign intervention. All those drone strikes aren’t worth the cost of the missiles or even the fuel for what we get back. Which is nothing.

yes it is

By striking Syria we let countries like North Korea and Iran know we mean business

Trump stopped support for Guerrilla fighters in Syria this week.

North Korea and Syria are not our problem.

It's a game man

North Korea is very much our porblem

Didn’t the white hats get funding back?

Maybe through Israel

North Korea isn’t our problem if we withdraw from the region. We never should have been there in the first place.

I disagree

South Korea is a very valuable ally

NK is a global danger

That and the north is consistently threatening us with nuclear war so we have plenty of reason ot be involved.

yes

It is one of a few rogue nations

And although I am generally opposed to global intervention, in this case it is necessary.

They only threaten us because we are literally at war with them with an army at their doorstep. If we left, the regional powers would be more than able to contain NK. You guys really think China can’t take North Korea?

They don't want to

China won't contain North Korea because they are not a threat

Because we’re there

we need to just rip the bandaid off

get NK gone

We can do that slowly

NK is a failing state

eventually unification is inevitable

And since we are involved we can be rather certain that democracy will prevail

I think it is important to learn from South Korea, Japan, and Vietnam when dealing with the middle east.

I think we should take and colonize it by force

Democracy will prevail? Like in Afghanistan? Like Iraq?

No

That's my whole point

why we need to learn

In Japan and South Korea our system worked amazingly

Those two countries now have some of the best economies in the world

I guess that’s true.

but our intervention in Vietnam failed

do you know why?

because their food is too good

Because south Vietnam was weak and most Vietnamese supported the communist forces

they did not want democracy

They were not ready for it

So when we try to do what we did with Japan and Korea in places like Iraq of course it will fail

the culture in the middle east is not ready for democracy

It's not that our system for democratization is failed it's that a society has to be receptive to our help.

South Korea was pretty much in the same boat as South Vietnam. Weak leadership and a population that didn't give a fuck about democracy. North Korea outperformed South Korea economically until the 90's.

and if we learned anything from Vietnam, an organized guerilla force can win against nearly any power in their home country

The difference is that North Korea didn't overrun South Korea permanently.

try getting Americans organized though