4 ms·
It almost always requires violence to create a state, and at the very least, it does require the capacity for violence. A State has a violence on monopoly and t
by djsumdog 7y ago
It almost always requires violence to create a state, and at the very least, it does require the capacity for violence. A State has a violence on monopoly and the ability to defend itself from anyone else who says, "You are part of my State/Country/Kingdom".
If you could hire a private army, or maybe an army of pirates, Seasteading would work. But you have to pay them. Conquerors often paid armies by charging taxes to the lands they conquered, placing them in debt. The solders who were injured and missing arms/legs got their reward by collecting taxes and maintaining the taken land.
The book Debt: The First 5,000 Years, goes into this concept in great detail. Another book in this genre is The Dictators Handbook.
- roywiggins 7y agoEveryone else might still ignore you. Nobody recognizes Abkhazia, even though it's kinda self-governing.
- djsumdog 7y agoI've never heard of this State. It's very similar to Transnistria (which some of the world recognizes as a nation, but most UN countries still recognize as part of Moldova).
- htmk 7y agoKinda? Can you be kind enough to elaborate.
- roywiggins 7y agoWell, it's dependent on Russia to even exist. It's not like it has an independent foreign policy and depending who you ask, is not really self-governing at all: https://www.newsweek.com/how-russias-fsb-colonized-abkhazia-71447 https://www.newsweek.com/how-russias-fsb-colonized-abkhazia-...
- Freak_NL 7y ago> A State has a violence on monopoly […] A game of Monopoly will turn the most affable man violent (you probably meant the monopoly on violence).