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???