• marcos@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    15
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    10 days ago

    No. You wouldn’t first have to conquer all other states.

    What make a state exist in your society is the existence of violence, not the existence of other states.

    • IrateAnteater@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      27
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      10 days ago

      Ah, so you’ve invented your own definition of the word “state”. And if a “state” is defined by the mere existence of violence, than a stateless society is an impossibility.

      • marcos@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        10 days ago

        Ah, no, that in my comment is not a definition. You are misreading it.

        • Phoenixz@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          14
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          10 days ago

          You just defined it as such, right there… Or at least tried to?

          • zaubentrucker@sopuli.xyz
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            10 days ago

            No, he said that a state exists because of violence.

            Definition: A human is a featherless bipedal Reasoning: Humans exist because of sex