you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]an-arkhos[S] 2 insightful - 1 funny2 insightful - 0 funny3 insightful - 1 funny -  (2 children)

A state that own nothing can't function. At the least, they would almost seem to need paper and pencil, with a desk in a non-borrowed space. Then, how do they get around or contact people? Would they walk to coffee shops to meet people? Then if they write something as a result, they may need a filing cabinet for the papers. Really seems like they would need to own stuff just to function at any level.

Cmon dude, this is a next level conversation,things can be in "possession" of the state while the "ownership" is retained by the people, just like corporations do not truly "own" stuff but all the things "in possession" of a corporation are owned by its shareholders.

Not sure what to reply to the rest of your post, sounds like your a fan of strong nations and value power and well being of the collective over the plight of the individual, if we have different goals we are bound to have different answers.

[–]Node 1 insightful - 1 funny1 insightful - 0 funny2 insightful - 1 funny -  (1 child)

things can be in "possession" of the state while the "ownership" is retained by the people, just like corporations do not truly "own" stuff but all the things "in possession" of a corporation are owned by its shareholders.

I would accept that technicality, but in real life, the state effectively owns everything within its borders. Citizens are effectively "club members", with all the rights and responsibilities thereof.

the plight of the individual

Individuals are responsible for creating their own plights. No one is 'owed' a plight, especially those who did nothing but suck up resources for the first 10 or 20 years of their membership. Looked at another way, it could be argued that they owe an enormous debt for their very existence. To their direct caregivers, yes, but they're also living on "club grounds" under a provisional exception to their duty to provide value in exchange.

Now, I can see the validity of other forms of living arrangements. Living tribally can work - when the population in a given area is low enough. Then you need no real borders, because resources in the area are sufficient, and replenished faster than they're used up. We unfortunately no longer live in that world. Whole world is sliced and diced, mapped and claimed. There are very few places one can exist without a country membership. Pressure is getting so great that some of the cracks appear to be threatening the whole system. So maybe we will get back to that tribal/alternate way of living, or tech advances will effectively solidify control over the masses à la manière de Brave New World.

I guess I'm arguing for "what is" rather than what should or could be, but maybe I'm blurring the edges a bit.

[–]an-arkhos[S] 1 insightful - 1 funny1 insightful - 0 funny2 insightful - 1 funny -  (0 children)

Fair enough a very apt description of "what is". But smaller nations are better for everyone, cooperation rather then federation and power consolidation, catalonians want to be independent let them be independent,spain has no moral authority to be suppressing this by force and the EU shows is true colors by supporting spain