Spyke

Syndicated from the fediverse. Read and engage on the original instance.

View original on lemmy.zip

6 replies

Yes, but without overwhelming oppressive force suppressing certain segments of the population no global nation would survive. Between religion, race ,and historical claims of ownership there's always going to be conflict, or suppression of conflict by some means of organized force. That organization could be elected or a local warlord, but someone is always going to seek to impose their will on another.

-1
lemmy.cafe

Defending my life and safety isn't the same as imposing my will on other people. The former can be done without hierarchy, as a community. Equating the two only serves to defend the oppressors.

7
piefed.socdojo.com

Then you have a police force with an alternate name, to go along the the community adjudicators formerly known as courts.

Regardless of which way you name it, if there's a large group of problem persons causing trouble, you require a large group to put them in their place. If that group is formalized and reliable as a militia/military, or ad-hoc hoping your neighbors will come to your aid when needed is the only real question.

If you gather enough people together who will promise to defend each other when needed then what you have is a rudimentary nation, or as some liked to call them back in the day, a commonwealth.

1
yeahiknow3reply
lemmy.dbzer0.com

Yes, but the fact that a nation is “made up” hits different depending on the nature of the regime.

In the case of your commonwealth, being “made up” is obvious and crucial and implies certain rights and responsibilities. In the case of China, it implies oppression, delusion, and brutality.

2

You reached the end

What's yours? | Spyke