• RGB3x3@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      6 months ago

      No country or government has a “right” to exist. They’re given that ability to exist by the people they’re supposed to serve. If the system is not serving the people, it shouldn’t exist.

      • Semi-Hemi-Demigod@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        6 months ago

        Supreme executive power is derived from a mandate from the masses, not some farcical electoral ceremony.

        If I declared myself chancellor because a bunch of my friends voted for me they’d put me a way.

    • mojo_raisin@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      6 months ago

      It’s the state that has no right to exist, not the people or the place.

      Now what is a state?

      Look it up, but it’s basically a formalized group of people who believe themselves entitled to power and claim they can use violence to get their way and you are not allowed to defend yourself against it.

      The state is a cultural pandemic, this is the real mind virus, our species existed for like 200,000 years in complex societies without the state, 500 years with ubiquitous state (look up enclosure acts that forced everyone into a state) is all it’s taken to destroy the entire planet.

    • freagle@lemmygrad.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      6 months ago

      That’s just not true. You just never learned what a nation is. Before there were nation-states, there were city-states. City-states were states that were confined to a city, geographically. So what is a nation then? It’s not, as people think, an arbitrary border, a nation is a people with a shared history. French is a nation-state, a state that emerges from the nation of the French people, people who have a long history of being born in the same location, sharing the same language, and sharing many many cultural aspects.

      America is not a nation, but it is a state. There are no American people. The land was inhabited by 100s of nations that did not organize themselves into states. That land was given the name of an Italian (Amerigo), and then a bunch of people of different nationalities invaded and occupied it. Same with all of the “Latin American” states, Australia, Canada, and the rest of the colonial world. There is no Australian nation, there is an Australian state populated by people of many different nations (the English nation, the Italian nation, the German nation, etc).

      As far as I know, there are no nationless-states that aren’t violent genocidal colonial projects. All of these states are illegitimate, based only on dominance with absolutely no other foundation.

      All states should ultimately be dismantled, but the colonial states will need to go first, because otherwise the colonial states, history’s most violent states, will be empowered by the dismantling of other states. There is an order to these things.

      • Milksteaks [he/him]@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        6 months ago

        I was watching the falcon and winter soldier and I was thinking the flag smashers had a good point and were doing good for the world. They wanted no borders and no more nationalism. At one point they randomly had the flagsmashers kill some innocents to make them the antagonists

        • Swedneck@discuss.tchncs.de
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          6 months ago

          buddy it used to be absolutely standard for people to invite complete and utter strangers into their homes, offer them food and a place to sleep, and not expect any sort of payment beyond maybe them telling some stories and news.

          maybe research the past before saying laughable things as if they’re some amazing “gotcha”

        • thesporkeffect@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          6 months ago

          No one’s saying you shouldn’t have a safe place to sleep, and if they are then I would like to have a discussion with them

        • jsomae@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          6 months ago

          This kind of argument is like those anti-communist arguments “would you want to have to share your iPod with strangers?”

        • triplenadir@lemmygrad.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          6 months ago

          maybe if you think really hard you can imagine some kind of differences between national borders, and the boundaries of personal living space…

      • IrateAnteater@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        6 months ago

        No I’m not. Anarchism keeps getting stupider and less likely to ever be a workable solution to anything the more I look into it. It’s at best a nice thought experiment.

        • ILikeBoobies@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          6 months ago

          “Hey look at that disorganized group of people, I bet if we organized we could take them over”