No, and if a complete pacifist nation sprung up tomorrow I would personally invade it and take all its cheese.
Can a country be established and/or maintained without the use of violence?
- Thread starter JohnJacobJingle
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Ah, but the pen IS mightier than the sword, but only the paper succumbs to the will of the pen.mrhappyface said:
OT: HELL NO!!! Wanna know why??? Because most people are retarded (at least if you count the ideal person for your idea normal), and even if you got all the people in the world who could make it work, put them on another habitable planet and started an isolated colony there, eventually one of their descendants would become corrupt and everything would go to
O(ff)T: I am one of the people who could make it work
.
I wish it could be done, but honestly, I can't think of any prior examples of this... sad fact =\
I'm slightly surprised that people keep mentioning Canada, has Wolfe's victory on the Heights of Abraham been forgotten already?
In answer to the original question: It depends on what you mean by "the use of violence". There are a few nations which gained independence and which have no armed forces of their own but they are reliant on the maintaining friendly relations with their neighbours or some sort of deterrent effect supplied by their allies or the World at large.
In answer to the original question: It depends on what you mean by "the use of violence". There are a few nations which gained independence and which have no armed forces of their own but they are reliant on the maintaining friendly relations with their neighbours or some sort of deterrent effect supplied by their allies or the World at large.
Canada and Singapore are the only examples I can think of at the moment.
Technically, some former colonies could count, like French Guiana, Iceland, or Swaziland, since violence wasn't involved in their independence and they don't have many if any violent disputes with those around them.
Technically, some former colonies could count, like French Guiana, Iceland, or Swaziland, since violence wasn't involved in their independence and they don't have many if any violent disputes with those around them.
Seconded! The moment those seperatists had any kind of success, us Ontarians would be up in arms to invade them and stamp out their language.Glefistus said:
Besides, they'll never vote to seperate, they just like to whine. There are several nationalists.
EDIT: Actually, something that suprised me while I was knocking around Canada, BC is one of the worst provinces for anti-french sentiment.
by they, I mean seperatists.
Yeah, a state can absolutely be established without bloodshed. See Canada.
Maintenance, however, is another matter. The state is defined by its monopoly on the legitimate use of violence. Police work is often an exercise of violence. Whether it's possible for a state to perpetuate itself without military conflict is debatable; many would argue that it is possible with the solid sponsorship of a great power, but I would say that any such arrangement is necessarily temporary. Long-lived, maybe, but temporary.
Maintenance, however, is another matter. The state is defined by its monopoly on the legitimate use of violence. Police work is often an exercise of violence. Whether it's possible for a state to perpetuate itself without military conflict is debatable; many would argue that it is possible with the solid sponsorship of a great power, but I would say that any such arrangement is necessarily temporary. Long-lived, maybe, but temporary.
