Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
Given that they're his support base, he can't very well turn on them now, can he?
The Antifa makes me uneasy - too many times they choose brickbats over rationality. But when their opponents are the sort who want to bring back Concentration Camps and Racial Supremacy and Discrimination, I can't blame them for the reaction.
Black-and-Gray Morality in it's actual form.
I hold the secrets of the machine.See, the problem with your argument is that the video in question names each of the definition elements that you mentioned and shows how technically speaking, none of them apply in the case of the USA.
1. Common identity: Many people in the USA identify more closely with their states than with the whole nation. And that's without factoring in the existing secessionist movements.
2. Sovereignty: Not only do the states get away with more defiance of federal law than people usually expect, the US has the unique phenomenon of recognizing the sovereignty of Native American tribes within the boundaries of their reservations, to the point that gambling can be perfectly legal within such a reservation even if the state it's fully contained within criminalizes it, and the tribes can and have conducted foreign relations with other countries as representatives of themselves and not of the USA.
3. Territorial integrity: Well, consider the above-mentioned situation with the Native American reservations. The video includes a nice map that illustrates what the USA would look like if you treated the reservations as actual countries (since they arguably are already so de facto). Ultimately, though, the video doesn't really say that the USA isn't a country, just that it challenges the traditional notion of what a "country" is in the minds of most people.
1 has not been true for at least a century, most Americans consider themselves to be Americans first and Georgians or idahoans or whatever second. And secessionist movements have never been anything approaching to relevant in the modern-day.
2 is also incorrect, yes states and native tribes have dejure sovereignty but that does not make them independent. It merely involves having certain rights and autonomy in certain areas, if it was the kind of sovereignty that makes one an independent country you would have various tribes or states making trade deals with each other or foreign nations. Neither happens, when it comes to foreign policy the US is strongly unified under the Federal government. And domestically the Federal government also has a great deal of power, just because its power is not universal (like in a unitary state) does not make that power any less real.
3 is not a lack of territorial integrity, the existence of tribal subunits does not make the Federal government's control of its territory any less real. There's a reason that the US is a single entity in the UN, and all other foreign bodies, because we're a country which just offers fairly high levels of autonomy (in some areas) to its internal units.
Edited by Fourthspartan56 on Aug 18th 2019 at 9:22:31 AM
"Einstein would turn over in his grave. Not only does God play dice, the dice are loaded." -Chairman Sheng-Ji YangThat's mostly black bloc tactics, and frankly, while those tend to be the headline-grabbers because they're the easiest to condemn, technically any action taken to oppose fascist ideology is 'anti-fascism.' But we're not talking about organized cells of independent operators ala a terrorist movement, but it's just easy to use that imagery as a scare tactic because by and large, the Western public has been extremely well-conditioned to oppose those kinds of movements.
Still not embarrassing enough to stan billionaires or tech companies.The other thing you have to keep in mind is, if the US isn't a nation, then what the hell is it?
Leviticus 19:34But we're not especially spread out, the majority of US territory is consolidated in CONUS.
Most of our power is derived from our alliances, treaties, and military bases.
Defining the US as an empire with 50 states is still dumb, we're a single state that just so happens to be hegemonic. Is it really so hard to understand that a federalist nation is still a nation?
Edited by Fourthspartan56 on Aug 18th 2019 at 1:14:15 AM
"Einstein would turn over in his grave. Not only does God play dice, the dice are loaded." -Chairman Sheng-Ji YangYou don't spend time watching Anarchists doing their mental sessions, right?
It's not a Libertarian only idea
Edited by KazuyaProta on Aug 18th 2019 at 3:16:49 AM
Watch me destroying my countryIt's not a Libertarian only idea
Those would be left-libertarians, and no. I firmly believe that they're far more sensible than most right-libertarians, and thus are aware that the US states' sovereignty is hardly very sovereign.
Indeed, it's weird that some people seem to have a hard time grasping the concept of Federalism.
Edited by Fourthspartan56 on Aug 18th 2019 at 1:19:59 AM
"Einstein would turn over in his grave. Not only does God play dice, the dice are loaded." -Chairman Sheng-Ji YangUlysses S Grant in his memoirs more or less states that the only time the United States could not have been considered one nation was in the early days of its existence when the Union was considered by the founders as an "experiment." If any state or states decided they wanted out then Grant says, "I do not suppose there would have been any to contest the right, no matter much the determination might have been regretted." The Constitution and its subsequent amendments made the idea of a unified nation stronger, each state knew what they were getting into when they sign up, and actively participated in shaping that greater unified state.
And that was just the reasoning for the original thirteen states. The states formed from the Louisiana Purchase were created from national land, paid for by the entire nation. They were never not part of the greater union.
![]()
![]()
That's your bias speaking. Left Libertarians can be very very dumb
Edited by KazuyaProta on Aug 18th 2019 at 3:26:04 AM
Watch me destroying my countryand I guess might as well say but..I stand corrected,my original statement was erroneous
Fair enough.
I disagree, I am not especially fond of libertarian socialism and I'm even less friendly towards anarchism but left-libertarianism is, as a rule, more intellectually coherent then right-libertarianism.
So while they can be wrong and/or dumb they're still significantly more intellectually coherent than right-libertarians.
I'm less complementing left-libertarianism and more denigrating right-libertarianism.
Edited by Fourthspartan56 on Aug 18th 2019 at 1:29:43 AM
"Einstein would turn over in his grave. Not only does God play dice, the dice are loaded." -Chairman Sheng-Ji Yang@[1]
: Since when did Disney start cosying up to Trump?
@[2]
: I know that, and it's one of the things that Wendover points out in the EU video that could be argued to technically invalidate or at least complicate the "independent government" criterion (namely, that the states more or less direct the EU government, not the other way around).
@[3]
: This lack of a legal mechanism for secession is pointed out in the Wendover video as something that is common to practically every modern sovereign state, and thus arguably can be considered as an integral element of such a state... even though it also mentions the "right to revolution" theory in the same context.
@[4]
: I'm just summarizing what the video seems to be saying; it's not like I fully agree with everything it says. Frankly speaking, it doesn't really claim to be giving an absolute answer, just a perspective and some possible answers; the "conclusion" is simply a restatement of the original question, which seems to be a roundabout way of saying "there's no straightforward answer to this that would absolutely satisfy a simple majority of people around the world".
On a side note, I don't like the constitutive theory; it's the main reason why Taiwan, which by all rights is a sovereign state, lost its UN seat due to the PRC essentially strongarming most of the world's sovereign states into refusing to officially recognize Taiwan as anything other than a constituent part of the PRC.
@[5]
:
- What about those who assert state rights or weakening the federal government, though? That sounds like closer identification with the state than with the national identity to me.
- Did you miss the part of the Native Americans sending foreign delegations to other countries to represent themselves separately of the US? Or is this something that the video's makers got wrong?
- A typical federal state has a clear hierarchy of subunits. The reservations, on the other hand, don't follow any clear hierarchy, with many stretching across two or more states' borders. It's this that the video points out as throwing a wrench into the matter.
@[6]
: That's literally the Bookends of the video. It's basically saying "We call the USA a 'sovereign state', but it doesn't actually fit the most commonly cited definition(s) of the term per se, so either it's not or we need to seriously revise our definition". Or in other words, "the definition of 'sovereign state' is as problematic as the definition of 'continent'".
@[7]
: Yeah, I think the video is basically saying that the definition of "sovereign state" that most people tend to think of didn't really have federal states in mind when it was formulated. All in all, the video does point out that concepts like "country" and "sovereign state" are social constructs that rely on consensus belief by society to make sense, unlike natural concepts like "salt" (vernacular name of "sodium chloride") which are immutable facts no matter what name you give to them.
Edited by MarqFJA on Aug 18th 2019 at 11:35:49 AM
Fiat iustitia, et pereat mundus.I wouldn’t say this is accurate.
The most agreed-upon definition for a sovereign state is a state that has a permanent population, a defined territory, a single central government, the capacity to enter relations with other sovereign states, and is not subject to or dependent on another state. That definition absolutely describes the US, and given that these definitions were formalized in the 1920s and 30s I’m pretty sure federal states were kept in mind.
Edited by archonspeaks on Aug 18th 2019 at 1:48:23 AM
They should have sent a poet.
X3 Yeah the leftist groups have the advantage that anarchism and cooperative organisations can work on certain scales, not as large a scale as many anarchists I like to think, but they can exist on a level.
Edited by Silasw on Aug 18th 2019 at 8:48:04 AM
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ CyranNah the limiter is everyone in the system having some form of personal connection with every other member, so that’s around 100 members.
Also you need the ability to remove negative elements from the community, for a private organisation that’s pretty easy, for something like a nation that requires either exile or execution.
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ CyranMy thoughts exactly.
Left Libertarians can be succinctly described as "not entirely baseless but fairly nonviable beyond small scale", Right Libertarnaism is best described as "superficially convincing but unimaginably awful in practice and intellectually laughable".
"Einstein would turn over in his grave. Not only does God play dice, the dice are loaded." -Chairman Sheng-Ji Yang

I think we already brought it up here too.
Disgusted, but not surprised