liberty student: Marko:People will form hierarchies, but they will form natural hierarchies. Hierarchies between people who possess the same natural rights and are voluntary. People will form voluntary hierarchies, because there exist natural elites. However these hierarchies are not a negation of equality but its confirmation, since they are associations of people of equal legal rights and therefore of equal status. And further such hierarchies are never to be confused with phony, artificial and forceful hierarchies of today or of the past which is something that byzantine and Giles don`t seem to graps or pretend not to by invoking "feudalism" which is synonymous with artifical, phony, forceful, statist hierarchies. Yes, this is exactly what Giles and Byzantine are talking about, but one or both use the word feudal, and you react like a 3 year old who has lost his lolly.
Marko:People will form hierarchies, but they will form natural hierarchies. Hierarchies between people who possess the same natural rights and are voluntary. People will form voluntary hierarchies, because there exist natural elites. However these hierarchies are not a negation of equality but its confirmation, since they are associations of people of equal legal rights and therefore of equal status. And further such hierarchies are never to be confused with phony, artificial and forceful hierarchies of today or of the past which is something that byzantine and Giles don`t seem to graps or pretend not to by invoking "feudalism" which is synonymous with artifical, phony, forceful, statist hierarchies.
Yes, this is exactly what Giles and Byzantine are talking about, but one or both use the word feudal, and you react like a 3 year old who has lost his lolly.
liberty student: Juan:Conservatives are childish. They are attached to their religious fairy tales, arbitrary customs and authoritarian worldview, and don't realize, or pretend they don't realize that such mindset is the basis for statism. Conservatives only dislike the state as long as it's not a conservative state... I agree. I find your and BP's conservative egalitarianism anachonistic and offensive.
Juan:Conservatives are childish. They are attached to their religious fairy tales, arbitrary customs and authoritarian worldview, and don't realize, or pretend they don't realize that such mindset is the basis for statism. Conservatives only dislike the state as long as it's not a conservative state...
I agree. I find your and BP's conservative egalitarianism anachonistic and offensive.
Which of the things BP said are conservative or egalitarianist? He was merely pointing out that, by definition (or by implication/equivalence arising from definition), there can't be uniform laws in anarchy, where uniformity is intentional, not a coincidental. That doesn't mean he makes the case for gay, blacks, women, Catholics or anything else. This isn't even remotely conservative egalitarianism.
Getting back to the matter at hand, I'd say it's nonsense to allow for not previously agreed uniform law in anarcho-capitalism. This would imply that even the state would be the product of a free market. It would also mean that the current states do have a free market, that is, a free market that has already decided its uniform laws. And so it would mean we already live in anarcho-capitalism.
Indeed, in any theory, if you have a contradiction, then you can basically prove anything you wish, according to the principle of explosion. That is, E p, (p ^ !p) -> q, for all q.
And so it is that if the market can't properly cope with mob rule, then that anarchic community isn't stable, it could degenerate at any time into a state. So in fact we should discuss whether anarchy is stable, rather than postulate the existence of a semi-statist anarchy.
I hope this clarifies the matter, or at least my point of view.
Byzantine: As democracy trends toward outright socialism and then collapse and chaos, non-state institutions will emerge to offer services formerly monopolized by government, eventually supplanting democratic government in their spheres of influence. Over time, these will evolve into hereditary structures. They will differ from the early feudal institutions in that they may or may not be land-based. Also, they will be forced to compete for human capital and, by the same token, will evict net consumers, who will have to make do as best they can outside the protection of, for lack of a better term, the private fees. Those are the two differences from medieval feudalism: 1) not necessarily tied to a geographic region (though some most certainly will be in key transportation or natural resource areas), and 2) competition for human capital, since there will be no shared self-interest of governments for uniform confiscatory tax rates and high regulation. The anti-egalitarian ethos follows from this model. The good news for the Left is that the Right's nanny state and foreign wars will be obsolete. The bad news is the guilds, the fees, clans, etc. will give similarly short shrift to the Left's crackpot social engineering and redistributive justice.
As democracy trends toward outright socialism and then collapse and chaos, non-state institutions will emerge to offer services formerly monopolized by government, eventually supplanting democratic government in their spheres of influence. Over time, these will evolve into hereditary structures. They will differ from the early feudal institutions in that they may or may not be land-based. Also, they will be forced to compete for human capital and, by the same token, will evict net consumers, who will have to make do as best they can outside the protection of, for lack of a better term, the private fees.
Those are the two differences from medieval feudalism: 1) not necessarily tied to a geographic region (though some most certainly will be in key transportation or natural resource areas), and 2) competition for human capital, since there will be no shared self-interest of governments for uniform confiscatory tax rates and high regulation. The anti-egalitarian ethos follows from this model. The good news for the Left is that the Right's nanny state and foreign wars will be obsolete. The bad news is the guilds, the fees, clans, etc. will give similarly short shrift to the Left's crackpot social engineering and redistributive justice.
Eduard - Gabriel Munteanu:Which of the things BP said are conservative or egalitarianist? He was merely pointing out that, by definition (or by implication/equivalence arising from definition), there can't be uniform laws in anarchy, where uniformity is intentional, not a coincidental. That doesn't mean he makes the case for gay, blacks, women, Catholics or anything else. This isn't even remotely conservative egalitarianism.
That portion of the discussion has been going on for months, perhaps not explicitly in this thread. Wherever Giles, Byzantine, myself, Stranger are, Juan and Brainpolice are rarely far behind. It's the reason why so many topics simply cannot be discussed because a flame war is sought out by particular parties, anxious to censor a particular view through astro-turfing.
Eduard - Gabriel Munteanu:Getting back to the matter at hand, I'd say it's nonsense to allow for not previously agreed uniform law in anarcho-capitalism. This would imply that even the state would be the product of a free market. It would also mean that the current states do have a free market, that is, a free market that has already decided its uniform laws. And so it would mean we already live in anarcho-capitalism.
Not necessarily. Although, to argue that the state did not come out of the free market, is to argue that the state has either (1) always existed or (2) predates the free market.
Eduard - Gabriel Munteanu:Indeed, in any theory, if you have a contradiction, then you can basically prove anything you wish, according to the principle of explosion. That is, E p, (p ^ !p) -> q, for all q.
I suck at math.
Eduard - Gabriel Munteanu:And so it is that if the market can't properly cope with mob rule, then that anarchic community isn't stable, it could degenerate at any time into a state. So in fact we should discuss whether anarchy is stable, rather than postulate the existence of a semi-statist anarchy.
Semi-statism is a construct of Juan and BP's imaginations. No one here is talking about coercive behaviour, only that some of us may believe that post-state, people will choose voluntary hierarchies. This is what is so adamantly rejected by BP and Juan. It's my personal belief (which could be wrong) that they aren't too keen on people living in a manner they do not approve of. It's hypocrisy at it's finest.
Juan: LS: Do you have a job ? Self-employed. Next ?
LS: Do you have a job ?
Do you take on work or projects voluntarily?
LS:Do you take on work or projects voluntarily?
February 17 - 1600 - Giordano Bruno is burnt alive by the catholic church. Aquinas : "much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death."
spires:I find libertarianism useful, but not because I want to become a feudal lord.
This isn't about becoming feudal lords.
spires:I'm not an egalitarian, despite what you've gleaned from a few short posts.
I never said you were.
spires:Even if people are all radically unequal, which I'm perfectly comfortable with, does not lead to the conclusion that certain social aesthetics will eventually dominate.
Right, so the market won't function. I mean, we believe it will function, except it won't function when it comes to rewarding the intelligent and punishing the unintelligent. Or rewarding the physically durable, and punishing the frail. Yeah, the market just stops working. All costs are equal...
spires: Perhaps your social values will be surprisingly and consistently excluded.
I've never indicated my social values, which I will say are a lot more narrow than some, and yet my desire to impose them on others, is probably the weakest of anyone I have debated here. What one chooses to do is their own business, even if I would not choose to do it. And I live by that.
spires:especially if the antics are not RL sensitive
Right libertarianism is a left libertarian myth. There are libertarians, and there are quasi-socialists, social planners, syndicalists, anti-capitalists, anti-globalists, envirofascists, red anarchists and such that have really taken to hiding out under the alliance of a libertarian left banner.
To paint me in the same class as Byzantine, or Giles when I rarely even make my personal preferences or agendas known, is indicative of the anti-intellectualism of the people who attack my arguments.
Juan:The answer to that is self-evident.
Juan, I don't want to take anything in this discussion for granted.
Juan:Are you going to make a point or just ask silly questions ?
I might do both, but if I do the latter, rest assured it will come at no additional cost to your ego.
Back on topic,
So, I assume that the people who pay you claim an authority over the direction and quality of your labour? Could we reason that as far as their satisfaction extends, so does your pay? And the inability to satisfy customers, could compromise your ability to earn?
The state seeks to make us all equal, it's our differences that drive evolution in the market, in ideas, in genetics when set free.
I have refuted this premise on this message board ad nauseum. The premise is ridiculous because the very nature of the state means that we are not equal to it, it is predicated on a certain group of human beings having special rights above others and being able to get away with doing that which the common individual cannot, and hence there is an inherent divide between ruler and subject. Libertarianism is inherently in favor of equality in the sense of removing this ruler/subject divide and establishing a normative respect for individual sovereignty, which applies to all individuals.
LS:So, I assume that the people who pay you claim an authority over the direction and quality of your labour?
Could we reason that as far as their satisfaction extends, so does your pay? And the inability to satisfy customers, could compromise your ability to earn?
Cooperation requires a hierarchy.
This premise is simply wrong. Cooperation only requires mutual agreement. It does not follow from the fact that I cooperate with someone that we are not on mutual terms. Cooperation is the product of both of us excersizing our individual sovereignty, it is not possible without the consent being on both sides. In this fundamental sense, it is not heirarchical at all - all parties privy to the phenomenon are equal in terms of their liberty to associate or not.
liberty student: Eduard - Gabriel Munteanu:Which of the things BP said are conservative or egalitarianist? He was merely pointing out that, by definition (or by implication/equivalence arising from definition), there can't be uniform laws in anarchy, where uniformity is intentional, not a coincidental. That doesn't mean he makes the case for gay, blacks, women, Catholics or anything else. This isn't even remotely conservative egalitarianism. That portion of the discussion has been going on for months, perhaps not explicitly in this thread. Wherever Giles, Byzantine, myself, Stranger are, Juan and Brainpolice are rarely far behind. It's the reason why so many topics simply cannot be discussed because a flame war is sought out by particular parties, anxious to censor a particular view through astro-turfing.
Okay, I won't argue about that. That was my impression about this particular discussion.
liberty student: Eduard - Gabriel Munteanu:Getting back to the matter at hand, I'd say it's nonsense to allow for not previously agreed uniform law in anarcho-capitalism. This would imply that even the state would be the product of a free market. It would also mean that the current states do have a free market, that is, a free market that has already decided its uniform laws. And so it would mean we already live in anarcho-capitalism. Not necessarily. Although, to argue that the state did not come out of the free market, is to argue that the state has either (1) always existed or (2) predates the free market.
I agree. But while there can be a free market at some point in time, I assume a stable anarchy provides mechanisms to counteract devolving into a state. Sure, a few like-minded people could still leave and form a state. Or the primordial free market could have been weak enough to fall prey to statism. But the point is a strong free market, by definition, can't produce a state. Whether an example of this definition is possible remains to be seen.
liberty student: Eduard - Gabriel Munteanu:Indeed, in any theory, if you have a contradiction, then you can basically prove anything you wish, according to the principle of explosion. That is, E p, (p ^ !p) -> q, for all q. I suck at math.
Simply put, if, from axioms, you can derive a proposition that is both true and false, then you can prove anything you can imagine. This is why I warn against allowing for any contradictions with the definition/axioms. Well, that is more about logic, not math.
liberty student: Eduard - Gabriel Munteanu:And so it is that if the market can't properly cope with mob rule, then that anarchic community isn't stable, it could degenerate at any time into a state. So in fact we should discuss whether anarchy is stable, rather than postulate the existence of a semi-statist anarchy. Semi-statism is a construct of Juan and BP's imaginations. No one here is talking about coercive behaviour, only that some of us may believe that post-state, people will choose voluntary hierarchies. This is what is so adamantly rejected by BP and Juan. It's my personal belief (which could be wrong) that they aren't too keen on people living in a manner they do not approve of. It's hypocrisy at it's finest.
I got the impression this was about coercion. Hierarchy in itself can exist without coercion, so it's not a problem for anarchism.
Please reference some of these specific rationales.
That's the bulk of what I do on this board. I make philosophical arguments for and against concepts, and some of you just poo-poo it.
Brainpolice:I have refuted this premise on this message board ad nauseum. The premise is ridiculous because the very nature of the state means that we are not equal to it, it is predicated on a certain group of human beings having special rights above others and being able to get away with doing that which the common individual cannot, and hence there is an inherent divide between ruler and subject.
Actually, you're just doing what you usually do. You change the argument to suit your response.
The issue isn't the people being equal with the state, it's that the state institution seeks to remove differences between individuals, by laundering morality, property and responsibility through a collective "we the people" filter it controls.
Eduard - Gabriel Munteanu:Hierarchy in itself can exist without coercion, so it's not a problem for anarchism.
You have just made some fanatical enemies on this board. lol
"And yet BP will argue that hierarchy by itself is a state institution and the post state world (anarchy) would feature a flat social order." - your words.
Yes, his words. I make specific arguments about specific concepts, they get ignored and I'm strawmanned as a commie.
Brainpolice: Please reference some of these specific rationales. That's the bulk of what I do on this board. I make philosophical arguments for and against concepts, and some of you just poo-poo it.
What you do, is twist other people's statements to suit your arguments, or outright construct strawmen. For months, I've challenged numerous times to back up your statements, and without fail, you retreat and ignore those requests for clarification and proof.
I almost wish you would stand your ground, and make your argument based on what has been said, rather than what you imagine was said, because then we could move on to new topics, instead of rehashing the same discussion, ad infinitum. I'm here to learn, and have changed and adapted my views many times when presented with a sound argument. Can you make the same claim to intellectual honesty?
Juan: LS:So, I assume that the people who pay you claim an authority over the direction and quality of your labour? No, they ask me to do X and I voluntarily do X.
You didn't answer the question. Please try again.
Juan:Could we reason that as far as their satisfaction extends, so does your pay? And the inability to satisfy customers, could compromise your ability to earn?Of course, but still there's no authority involved in the matter, only voluntary agreement.
Well surely someone is an authority on how you will execute the work, what the work will be? Or do people hire you to just do whatever you want?
Eduard - Gabriel Munteanu: liberty student: Eduard - Gabriel Munteanu:Getting back to the matter at hand, I'd say it's nonsense to allow for not previously agreed uniform law in anarcho-capitalism. This would imply that even the state would be the product of a free market. It would also mean that the current states do have a free market, that is, a free market that has already decided its uniform laws. And so it would mean we already live in anarcho-capitalism. Not necessarily. Although, to argue that the state did not come out of the free market, is to argue that the state has either (1) always existed or (2) predates the free market. I agree. But while there can be a free market at some point in time, I assume a stable anarchy provides mechanisms to counteract devolving into a state. Sure, a few like-minded people could still leave and form a state. Or the primordial free market could have been weak enough to fall prey to statism. But the point is a strong free market, by definition, can't produce a state. Whether an example of this definition is possible remains to be seen.
Well, you should take this with a grain of salt. Formulating rigorous statements in this matter isn't easy. Just take it as a statement that can be sufficiently accurate at some given moment. Of course, in this matter, anything can eventually fail. How soon and how easy does make the difference. But it doesn't go to say theoretical models aren't useful; we still use "perfect competition" to illustrate real-world concepts.
liberty student: Brainpolice:I have refuted this premise on this message board ad nauseum. The premise is ridiculous because the very nature of the state means that we are not equal to it, it is predicated on a certain group of human beings having special rights above others and being able to get away with doing that which the common individual cannot, and hence there is an inherent divide between ruler and subject. Actually, you're just doing what you usually do. You change the argument to suit your response. The issue isn't the people being equal with the state, it's that the state institution seeks to remove differences between individuals, by laundering morality, property and responsibility through a collective "we the people" filter it controls.
The state does not seek to literally equalize the economic structure of the society. The reality of the state is itself a deviation from flatness in the society, and the state's function is primarily to intensify where the power is concentrated in different areas. The effect is never actual flatness, it's always privilege to one group at the expense of other groups. I reject pure flatness as an impossibility anyways, and as undesirable to boot. But I also reject the extreme heirarchy and privilege that is represented by the state, and I think that the removal of the state inherently implies more pluralism and less heirarchy.
My point is, BP's position in many posts here, is that hierarchy is state. He makes little or no allowance for voluntary hierarchical ordering. Juan also parrots this (see up thread).
You have yet to demonstrate a comprehensive understanding of my position. That is not my position, it's a three word slogan. My position is that the state itself quite obviously is a heirarchy, and hence if you oppose the state you are proposing the removal of that particular heirarchy. By default, this implies less heirarchy in that particuar area. My left-libertarian position has consistantly been primarily that the state enables there to be more concentration of power and is itself a concentration of power. Your repeated attempts at strawmanning me as a marxist are highly disingenous.
As democracy trends toward outright socialism and then collapse and chaos, non-state institutions will emerge to offer services formerly monopolized by government, eventually supplanting democratic government in their spheres of influence. Over time, these will evolve into hereditary structures.
At which point, intergenerationally, they become states. Feudalism, AT BEST, is the pretext for the formation of states all over again, and it makes no sense for a libertarian to side with the new state. Feudalism, more realistically, is already predicated on a state forming and protecting the landlord's title, and functions as a province of a state. Quite simply, you are simply using libertarianism as a rationale for the imposition of what you actually value, I.E. feudalism rather than liberty. At best, all your position entails is setting back the historical progression of forms of government by a millenia or so, it doesn't actually abolish the government or establish a genuinely free society. Even assuming the absurdity of a "free society" with fuedal land arrangements, it won't remain a "free society" for long. But more than likely a "free society" with fuedal land arrangements isn't realy a free society to begin with - it's an archiac and backwards society.
LS: J: LS: So, I assume that the people who pay you claim an authority over the direction and quality of your labour? No, they ask me to do X and I voluntarily do X. You didn't answer the question. Please try again.
J: LS: So, I assume that the people who pay you claim an authority over the direction and quality of your labour? No, they ask me to do X and I voluntarily do X.
LS: So, I assume that the people who pay you claim an authority over the direction and quality of your labour?
Byzantine: The modern Western states like the USA and Great Britain will collapse from internal dissent, corruption and fiscal overreach. Nation-states, in the traditional sense such as the various kingdoms on the Saudi peninsula, the Dutch, the Finns, etc., will gain relevance but find themselves having to compete for capital and make low time-preference decisions regarding its deployment.
The modern Western states like the USA and Great Britain will collapse from internal dissent, corruption and fiscal overreach. Nation-states, in the traditional sense such as the various kingdoms on the Saudi peninsula, the Dutch, the Finns, etc., will gain relevance but find themselves having to compete for capital and make low time-preference decisions regarding its deployment.
Libertarianism consists in the non-aggression principle, i.e. a commitment to liberty. No more, no less. Unless feudalism concerns itself with justly homesteaded resources, it is merely another illegitimate form of statism, perhaps less vicious than other forms of statism, but statism nonetheless.
Freedom of markets is positively correlated with the degree of evolution in any society...
Juan:No amount of newspeak/word twisting is going to change the fact that cooperation and hierarchy are different things.
But you know that is wrong. By your own admission, you do work voluntarily, but someone else directs what the work will be.
Cooperation and voluntaryism doesn't mean the absence of leadership. People can voluntarily choose to follow someone else, as you do when you work for a client or customer. You consider it in your best interest, to follow their direction, to satisfy a goal they have set, in order to achieve your end, which is to get paid.
Sometimes your rabid anti-theism, and anti-conservatism lands you in trouble, because you forget that anarchy doesn't fit one model only, and that your world without coercion is impossible to maintain indefinitely.
Brainpolice:Your repeated attempts at strawmanning me as a marxist are highly disingenous.
I don't have to strawman you. I went through your YouTube catalog. You're just another anti-capitalist.
liberty student: Brainpolice:Your repeated attempts at strawmanning me as a marxist are highly disingenous. I don't have to strawman you. I went through your YouTube catalog. You're just another anti-capitalist.
You have no idea what you are talking about.
The state is a disease and Liberty is the both the victim and the only means to a lasting cure.
ThorsMitersaw: liberty student: Brainpolice:Your repeated attempts at strawmanning me as a marxist are highly disingenous. I don't have to strawman you. I went through your YouTube catalog. You're just another anti-capitalist. You have no idea what you are talking about.
^Very convincing argument.^
liberty student:You're just another anti-capitalist.
Woah! Another strawman. Surprising.
liberty student: No one here has spoken about striking anyone down. On the contrary, those who must be propped up, be they christian or atheist, muslim or jew, buddhist or hindu, straight, bi or gay, white, black, brown, red or yellow will have to swim and thrive on their own merit in the marketplace. And if you believe there are no differences in genetics, or sex, or age or creed/code, then you are a fool. Some will be disadvantaged, and the state will not be there to protect them coercively. Thus, some, might even perish due to the fact that they were distortions in nature or under the state in the first place.
No one here has spoken about striking anyone down. On the contrary, those who must be propped up, be they christian or atheist, muslim or jew, buddhist or hindu, straight, bi or gay, white, black, brown, red or yellow will have to swim and thrive on their own merit in the marketplace. And if you believe there are no differences in genetics, or sex, or age or creed/code, then you are a fool. Some will be disadvantaged, and the state will not be there to protect them coercively. Thus, some, might even perish due to the fact that they were distortions in nature or under the state in the first place.
And what race, gender or religion would be disadvantaged in a free society? which race do you think that will perish due to its inherent inferiority and inability to provide for themselves? would it be blacks, latinos or indians?That makes anarchy sound like an eugenicist's fantasy.
Jon Irenicus:Unless feudalism concerns itself with justly homesteaded resources,
That's where my distinction lies.
"You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows"
Bob Dylan
Brainpolice:At which point, intergenerationally, they become states. Feudalism, AT BEST, is the pretext for the formation of states all over again, and it makes no sense for a libertarian to side with the new state. Feudalism, more realistically, is already predicated on a state forming and protecting the landlord's title, and functions as a province of a state. Quite simply, you are simply using libertarianism as a rationale for the imposition of what you actually value, I.E. feudalism rather than liberty. At best, all your position entails is setting back the historical progression of forms of government by a millenia or so, it doesn't actually abolish the government or establish a genuinely free society. Even assuming the absurdity of a "free society" with fuedal land arrangements, it won't remain a "free society" for long. But more than likely a "free society" with fuedal land arrangements isn't realy a free society to begin with - it's an archiac and backwards society.
Whenver I hear you speaking I get the impression that you hate the state for the same reason you were annoyed at your parents when they sent you to bed too early, it's a shame that all those activies you like are contingent on the state
Brainpolice:The state does not seek to literally equalize the economic structure of the society. The reality of the state is itself a deviation from flatness in the society, and the state's function is primarily to intensify where the power is concentrated in different areas. The effect is never actual flatness, it's always privilege to one group at the expense of other groups. I reject pure flatness as an impossibility anyways, and as undesirable to boot. But I also reject the extreme heirarchy and privilege that is represented by the state, and I think that the removal of the state inherently implies more pluralism and less heirarchy.
Private property means inequality. The state abolishes private property. I'll leave to see where this is going.
Because we're talking economics. But thank you for admitting your intellectual dishonesty.
Juan:Also, the fact that conservatism is not libertarianism needs no further explanation. Just as true is the fact that cultural conservatism is NOT cultural libertarianism.
Wonderful, instead of reading the arguments in favour of this position you dismiss them as self evidently wrong.
Juan:Conservatives are childish.
High time preference is indicative of leftist "culture" (or, more accurately, lack of), did you know children tend to have high time preference (and gays.)
Brainpolice: "Inequality, conservatism, feudalism, elitism. Better known as libertarianism." Give me a break. Your principles and/or your application of them blatantly contradict libertarianism, and it doesn't take a left-libertarian perspective to see why it is absurd to define libertarianism in terms of "inequality, conservatism, feudalism, elitism". Clearly, you are being trollish and disingenous.
"Inequality, conservatism, feudalism, elitism. Better known as libertarianism."
Give me a break. Your principles and/or your application of them blatantly contradict libertarianism, and it doesn't take a left-libertarian perspective to see why it is absurd to define libertarianism in terms of "inequality, conservatism, feudalism, elitism". Clearly, you are being trollish and disingenous.
Says who, you? You can live your mediocre life under the state and keep wishing things would be more mediocre, but when the state collapses you're going to be in for a big suprise.
By the way, you didn't comment on the avatar, it's the armorial of the Holy Roman Empire, if you'd like to know.
Byzantine: The classical meaning of a nation is a nationality, an ethnic group. The traditional nation-states are places like France, Sweden, the Arab kingdoms, Finland, etc. The US is a radical experiment in nationhood: a propositional nation, although de facto, it was an Anglo/Celt nation-state prior to 1965.
The classical meaning of a nation is a nationality, an ethnic group. The traditional nation-states are places like France, Sweden, the Arab kingdoms, Finland, etc. The US is a radical experiment in nationhood: a propositional nation, although de facto, it was an Anglo/Celt nation-state prior to 1965.