Can a country be established and/or maintained without the use of violence?

[JohnJacobJingle]

Seriously...are there any examples of this?

And don't use India or the Benelux countries...The former is in a conflict with Pakistan over border issues, and the latter relied on violence both indigenous (resistance movements) and imported (French/UK/British/Russian) to repel agressors.

 

[Nova5]

Not that I'm aware of - the qualifying factors for this all depend on how you define 'violence'.

You're essentially talking about a Utopia, wherein no one would have weapons (government or civilian alike), and not have the ability to fashion makeshift ones. And even then, the idea of people still being violent will always be the case, as civil unrest is spawned from civil inequality. And as we all know, there's no such this as a perfect society.

In summary:

People --> Inequality amongst said people --> Violence --> Government does something about violence (which you can't very well do with a sit-in or hunger strike)

Edit: Also, I have to ask; Why the hell would anyone say India or Pakistan aren't violent? Pardon my bluntness here, but they've got some of the most batshit domestic policies out of the whole region. Do you mean to say, "Is it possible to establish/maintain a country without violence toward people outside the country itself?"? That's still not possible - to get recognized as a nation, you require sovereignty, which means other nations must see and respect your A.) Power B.) Resources or C.) Size, and one way or another this will always require a show of force.

 

[UltraParanoia]

no.

 

[FalloutJack]

There lies a rather Marxian way to lead to a society like that. Unfortunately, it is linked with the line of reasoning that leads to socialism where one man or one small group has all the power. The idea, according to Marx, is that you can reshape society to its needs when you're the one in power, and then you have to be willing to give up all power to let the country you've created rule itself in the manner of a Social-Democracy. That is, it's not the same kind of democracy the U.S. is suppose to be, but this crazy form of it born of a socialistic formula and avoiding outright dictatorship. I didn't get a full grasp of the idea, but I know how unlikely it is to go through with that final step, giving up power. How many people will actually do that?

 

[SonicKoala]

As long as their aren't any humans in it, then it should be fine.

 

[Brad Shepard]

im sad to say this, but no, i dont think that this can happen. humans are too proned to viloence to talk things out.

 

[Mozared]

Oh yes, that's definitely possible. Probably not right now though - humans need take 500 more years to get over their cultural differences and find sustainable sources of energy to provide luxury for every person on earth before they fully realize we are one race.

Then again, Iceland might have done it. Those crazy mofo's have done so much awesome shit I reckon they're about 500 years ahead of the rest of the world, evolutionary.

 

[mrhappyface]

What's that "pen is mightier than the sword" load of BS? Power flows from the power of a gun, bro, to quote Mao!

 

[UltraParanoia]

As long as their aren't any humans in it, then it should be fine.

im sad to say this, but no, i dont think that this can happen. humans are too proned to viloence to talk things out.

Yeah, cause animals aren't territorial or violent.

 

[Nunny]

As long as one person has more then another, thier will be conflict.

 

[DeadlyYellow]

No. A non-violent civilization is just going to be an easy victory for an iron fist nation.

 

[DoomyMcDoom]

couldn't work, our nature prohibits it.

also if we had no war, the deaths there would inevitably be replaced by deaths due to overcrowding/famine/disease...

 

[Naheal]

Canada. YAY US!

We'll see when Quebec finally decides that they're going to break off ;P

 

[Motti]

Established? Yes, there have been precedents, countries seeking independence and getting it peacefully. The name of the example I'm thinking of has slipped my mind, but it's somewhere in eastern europe.
Maintained? No, most pacifistic countries get their asses handed to them on a platter when the next reich comes along.

 

[Expresate]

Canada. YAY US!

You know very well that's only because of the weekly virgin sacrifices.

 

[Mozared]

And about 500 years behind economically.

Exactly, which is what I find so retardedly ironic. The one country in the world actually making an attempt to secure wealth for every citizen and use durable energy sources is bankrupt.

But wasn't Iceland established by vikings? You know, infamous for their violence.

You'd have to go into details of their founding, I guess. I don't think people actually lived on the island before the vikings arrived, and just because their kind was known for violence during raids it doesn't mean that the whole country was founded in violence.

 

[SonicKoala]

As long as their aren't any humans in it, then it should be fine.

im sad to say this, but no, i dont think that this can happen. humans are too proned to viloence to talk things out.

Yeah, cause animals aren't territorial or violent.

Humans are FAR more violent than animals, there's hardly even a comparison there. Really, animals, especially in the modern day, are not a major obstacle to establishing or maintaining a country (at least an industrialised society). Your sarcasm is unnecessary, and that's a pretty weak point.

 

[EmperorZoltan]

It's definitely possible. There are no examples that I can think of as to countries that have achieved it, however microcosm's of society have achieved this state.

Here's the thing, given a large enough population it's inevitable that conflict arises. Even IF you managed to stop war, there would still be local violence, and a fringe element of society who would rebel against the norm.

But in the future, thats a different story.

Theoretically socialism would be the best form of government, and given infinite resources and luxuries it would be inevitable for society to move towards this direction. Say tomorrow I invented a machine that could take trash, boil it down to its atomic level, and re-assemble it as anything I wanted (with equal mass to the amount burned down). I could use trash to create new clothes, food, building materials, anything. Capatalism would fail in the face of such an invention. That being said, to maintain social order, society would need to pool it resources and work together to formulate a new goal / direction. The needs of society over the needs of the individual. Basic socialism.

Now it didn't work with communism in Russia, humans are inheritantly greedy and without infinite resources this simply wouldn't work. However I do wonder if making such a machine would result in mass land grabs, war and the inevitable conflict such a machine was trying to avoid.

Barring the magic machine, I'd say a shift in the social perspective would be necessary. The education of philosophy from an early age would be an interesting prospect.

 

[Krythe]

Short answer: No. Force = Existance.

Medium Answer: A country as the definition I learned is "A clearly defined geographic area controlled by a single political entity with either the military capacity to defend itself or peaceful relations with their neighbors."

And as anyone who's ever taken a history class knows, peaceful relationships can go down the drain with alarming rapidity and little warning.( Or, for a more escapist-friendly comparison, try playing Civ IV and never building a single military unit.)

So I suppose a country could exist without signifigant martial prowess so long as the world stage is socially decadent enough to pacify the masses and there aren't any major threats. If a major threat arises though, you're pretty much screwed.

Long Answer: Would take hours to type and contain multiple citations. One I'll mention briefly is "Unarmed prophets have always failed while armed prophets have always suceeded." - Machiavelli's Prince is full of ones like that. (And that one is again escapist-friendly thanks to assassin's creed 2.)