You're viewing a single thread.
The problem is that with that line of thinking, just about nowhere on the planet has a right to exist.
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.
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.
What if some watery tart threw a sword at you?
That depends. How watery are we talking?
Drenched.
The problem is, it's a practical impossibility for the masses to mandate anything. There are way over 300 million people in the U.S. (for example), there is no practical way for a majority of them to mandate anything without going through channels put there by those in power which limit the scope of conversation as well as choices.
Anyone claiming a mandate from the people is really claiming successful control of oppressive systems.
Totally agree. Government starts getting worse the bigger a population it tries to govern.
But if I say "who wants pizza" and an entire kindergarten class says "Me!" then I'd call that a mandate from the masses.
Agreed. The United States is doing a piss-poor job serving the people, and while that may be due how the country was shaped during colonialism, it is not due to its ongoing colonialism. It's a totally different situation than Israel.
For established states like the US, it's more due to neocolonialism now
Now let's talk about fiat currency vs crypto currency
you mean paper backed by the might of a whole country vs expensive and poluting scam coins?
Now you listen here! I may have lost part of my brain in a wolverine attack, but... I know one thing and one thing's for sure, and that is the block chain is the future of currency. You think- oh, "fiat currency"? You th- what, "state backed dollars"? What could be better than a completely unaccountable system of absolute strangers and con artists, assembled together in a bizarre crypto fascist commune?
A world without borders sounds like a dream 😍
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
Propaganda is everywhere. Especially in super hero movies where they can remove ambiguity by writing actions that make bad guys unambiguously bad. They justify the heroes with these clear cut good and evil situations. Like in Batman when he kidnaps the guy from Hong Kong because Joker is making his points using grand displays that kill a bunch of people. Or in 24 when they carefully craft a situation where torture looks sensible (and maybe even pays off? It's been a long time, I can't remember if they show torture as a "justifiable" but ultimately useless act, or if they portray torture as an effective way of obtaining information when the tortured knows they only have to hold out for 24 hours).
The Boys does a better job with this by making the idea of heroes saving the day itself the villain and highlighting the corruption that would likely go along with such power and reputation.
Just finished watching “Death and other Details.” Same thing happened. Victor Sams did nothing wrong. 😑
Until someone walks into your home
This kind of argument is like those anti-communist arguments "would you want to have to share your iPod with strangers?"
Big government is coming to take your toothbrush
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
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"
Big difference between nowhere and no state.
You're beginning to get the point of anarchism.
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.
“Hey look at that disorganized group of people, I bet if we organized we could take them over”
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.
Now you're getting it
They have the "right" to exist but no mandate to exist. They're allowed to exist and just as allowed to collapse and dissolve
How is that a problem?
Moreso it's a contradiction in the original meme.
Uh, no, just because whites can't make a country without colonialism doesn't mean there aren't non-colonial countries. Iran, India, China and Egypt have had historical settlement for a good 5,000 years, their people are indigenous to the land. (Or have very close and long term migrations)
There are even indigenous populations in fucking Europe too, thinking of it
EDIT: For the 0 IQ blood and soil idiots in the comments, I'm referring to the indigenous people of these countries that have very long historical settlements
Iran, India, China and Egypt have had historical settlement for a good 5,000 years
I think that's kind of a common misconception that occurs when you're implementing ideas like race, nationality, or ethnicity to historical people who didn't really know them or understand them in the same way.
In regards to China, are we talking about the ethnic han? Well they displaced and settled land from other Chinese ethnicities. If we're just talking about the ethnicity held within a single nationality. Well, see there's a place in China called Inner Mongolia.....
In regards to Egypt, it's not an ethnicity, it's a nationality. You obviously have the ptolemeic dynasty, who were just some Greeks. You had the Persian dynasty for a while, then the nubian, then the meshwesh(Libyan), you even had the Hyksos who were proposed to be from the Levant. It's all over the place.
My point being that the ancient world was more connected than most people originally think, and ethnicities tended not to stay in one place for thousands and thousands of years.
You may know better but continuing to use China as the example - weren't they also repeatedly conquored and resettled by steppe people? Like, not only have they not had a 5000 year historic settlement but they have had as chaotic history of conquest and resettlement as just about anyone in history.
You may know better but continuing to use China as the example - weren't they also repeatedly conquored and resettled by steppe people?
Eh, I guess it depends on who you consider to be Chinese, and what period of history you're talking about?
For the most part the steppe people like the Turkic or the Mongolians did the majority of what we consider conquering in China in the 13th-14th century.
Before that they didn't really comprise a large threat unless you are going much further back in history. If we are examining the Han dynasty, who shares a piece of history around the same time as the Romans, then yes. We don't exactly have a bunch of primary sources, but we can tell a lot by the distribution of dna and language that they historically occupied large aspects of northern China, and are related to modern Manchu people's, and those who hail from Manchu people like the modern Koreans.
Like, not only have they not had a 5000 year historic settlement but they have had as chaotic history of conquest and resettlement as just about anyone in history.
If we are speaking of the migration and conquest carried out by the Han, it's not even really been hundreds. In the 19th century during the Taiping rebellion the Han started a civil war/genocide that killed around 30 million people. You get some pretty contextual quotes that kind of put into perspective the ethnic conflict native to China ""China is the China of the Chinese. We compatriots should identify ourselves with the China of the Han Chinese."
Except most of China was colonised by the Han people after the fall of Mongolia...
This is ahistorical. If the "fall of Mongolia" refers to the Yuan Dynasty, then the Han very obviously ruled China both prior and after that.
If that isn't what you mean, then you really don't know what you're talking about
Something like that.
How long do you have to wait before it's okay to live somewhere?
You think that having an indigenous population means that everything was sunshine and roses, and no group of humans was killing other groups of humans over that particular chunk of land? You might need to brush up on your history lessons.
You're making a utilitarian argument that doesn't account for the value of sovereignty.
Good job telling everyone you have no fucking idea what history is
Blisteringly stupid.