60
If you could magically form new nations, which would you break away or unify? (non-serious) (sopuli.xyz)
submitted 4 months ago* by to c/asklemmy@lemmy.world
95 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Ignoring the massive cost, legal hurdles, and the opinion of the residents/government/outside powers, if you could magically grant independence to certain territories or form new bigger nations from existing ones with no repercussions to yourself, what new countries would you create?

Please treat this as a non-serious post, let's not get into a massive political debate, those never end well.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 1 point 4 months ago (1 child)

That's why I didn't propose an anarchist vision. I do recognize the need for states. Just very very weak ones.

Nation states are a different case altogether though. You can have a multinational state. Sure, it is easier for a state to continue existing if the landmass it controls identifies as a single nation. That helps give it legitimacy.

I'd recommend reading more about nation states and why nations ≠ states.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 4 months ago (1 child)

    In common English nation, state, and nation-state are near-synonyms for the collectives created by people which exercise ultimate authortiy to enforce rules on conduct within a geographic area, with some variation due to the nominclature used by said collectives for their various subdivisions.

    I'm not sealioning. I'd love to read either an actual answer to my questions, a treatise on your "non-anarchist" idea, or even just a passionate rant about terminology.

    But quibbling over vocabulary instead of answering questions, without even offering a single link or reference and instead just saying " do your own reading", is simply bad form.

    We're here on social media, and if you don't want to have a discussion silence is always acceptable.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 4 months ago (1 child)

    My bad. I incorrectly assumed that the above terminologies were common knowledge. I should've provided direct links. Well, here they are:

    Difference between nations and states

    Definition of a "nation-state"

    When I talk about nations and states, I talk from the perspective of these definitions. As you can see, they're not really synonyms. It's not squabbling about terminologies. If we have a different understanding of what different words mean, then our logical arguments are going to look very different. I'm not saying that your definition is wrong or whatever. I'm just clarifying how I define these terms in my arguments. That way, you can understand what I mean to say.

    As for the "questions" you posed... I'm not sure exactly what answers you want me to provide. I already told you that I do believe that states need to exist. We're in agreement there. I just don't think that it's healthy for society to divide itself among different nations. Seems quite a waste of mental space, resources, etc. ¯⁠\⁠_⁠(⁠ツ⁠)⁠_⁠/⁠¯

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 4 months ago (1 child)

    (Apology accepted. Sorry if I was painfully American)

    The (very British) definition of "nation" you used isn't at all sensible with what the OP asked. To use meriam-Webster's definition as a guide, you meant definition 1.a.1, but there are six other listed definitions.

    https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/nation

    That being said, a "nationality' (meaning the same thing you called a" nation") will inevitably arise within any soverign state (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/state, meaning 5.a) which persists for a long enough time. The most obvious example perhaps being my own country, in which a distinct "american" /nationality arose after our civil war, although the distnct non-British nationalities of "Canadian" and "Australian" in those respective countries would also be excellent examples. (As would "british" itself.)

    While we're on odd meanings of words, it's probably worth mentioning that "race" is an archaic synonym for the same idea, although that usage fell out of common usage some time after the establishment of chattel slavery based on skin color.)

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 4 months ago

    Lemme explain the sensibility even when we use 1.a.1. I said the idea of a nation itself should cease to exist.

    An analog would be religion. If someone asked me, "what's your religion?". I would say, "I'm non religious". I wouldn't reply by saying, "my religion is atheism".

    Similarly, if someone asked me what nation I belonged to, I would say something along the lines of "technically, I'm under the jurisdiction of XYZ state, but I do not identify as a member of any nation."

    I'm hoping that this becomes the majority viewpoint. That's how my answer is sensible even with 1.a.1.

    And as for "will inevitably rise within any sovereign state which will persist for a long enough time", it's not true necessarily. Example being myself and so many other people (anarchists, lib socialists, even right wing libertarians). Yes, it has been true throughout history (descriptive), but I'm hoping it isn't going forward (normative).

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent