4 ms·
I can't imagine many people on the left or right supporting this.
by logicchains 6y ago
I can't imagine many people on the left or right supporting this.
- Acrobatic_Road 6y agoI'll support anything that means more nations.
- jsilence 6y agoOnly if persons can declare themselves nations. To illustrate by exageration how unsensical the concept of nations is in the first place.
- danaur 6y agoWhy do you think it's nonsensical?
- jsilence 6y agoBecause nation borders draw arbitrary lines splitting territory. I accept that peoples, ethnical coherent groups, tribes, culture circles whatever you would call it, exist and that it might make sense that these groups would have authority over their internal rules of interaction and living together. Makes sense. Yet nation borders more often than not do not run along these lines. Rather they stem from historical sways, power grabs, wars and whatever other negotiations and historical circumstances. The full absurdity of todays nations and their borders becomes apparent when you realize that air, water, sunlight, wild animals, money, raw materials and good all can move freely between nations, but humans can not.
- brokenkebab 6y agoBorders definitely are products of lots of historical events, but still hard to see how it relates to your original statement. Yes, borders are complicated, and what? And the undisputable fact that humans are neither sunlight, nor air, nor water (even if technically made mostly of water) should show the absurdity of nations how?
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- monadic3 6y agoNation just means "people". It's the concept of a nation-state (which the US is emphatically not) people assumed it has a legal meaning. It doesn't; it's a sociological word. People in this thread mean "state" and obviously don't have the experience to know what they're talking about.
- emayljames 6y agoI'd firmly say the right. Sure, you have auth-left, but is definitely not in this camp. Maybe liberal types but I'd argue they are at least partly on the right. edit: missread can't for can. Nevermind.
- paxys 6y agoThis sounds like the libertarian right's wet dream.