4 ms·
This logic isn't remotely sound. It's a ridiculous false dichotomy. There's a third option: It's a normal state that hasn't built walls around it like some kind
by CydeWeys 5y ago
This logic isn't remotely sound. It's a ridiculous false dichotomy. There's a third option: It's a normal state that hasn't built walls around it like some kind of medieval walled cities. Do you think every state that isn't completely walled off (there are basically none besides the Vatican) is "failed"?
- atweiden 5y agoWho said anything about walls? A state’s borders are defined by the land area over which it upholds its own legal system. If a state’s legal system is unenforceable within its so called “borders”, then by definition those are either no longer its borders, or the people living within the land area over which the state’s legal system cannot be enforced are living in a failed state. The borders will have become disputed in that case.