(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({}); Let us suppose for the sake of argument that the citizen and country nonsense is logically valid and just.

Who has the right to be sovereign?
That is: who has the right to be their own country?

According to international law as it currently stands:
"The state as a person of international law should possess the following qualifications: (a) a permanent population; (b) a defined territory; (c) government; and (d) capacity to enter into relations with the other states."

You must login or register to view this content.

So this raises the question: If these are the only valid requirements for being a country, and therefore the only requirements for being entitled to be left alone by other sovereign powers (see the UN charter), why, if the system of nation states is legally valid, can I not secede in my own person and property?

I possess a permanent population: myself.
I have a defined territory: my body, my house.
I have a government: myself, my mind.
And apparently I am a citizen (so called) of Australia currently, so I clearly have the capacity to enter into relations with other states.

I fit the criteria for a state, so why, if this system is legally valid, am I not allowed to declare my sovereignty?


Lets consider another example.

The state of Nauru contains 9000 people. It has 90% unemployment. There is no industry except government, and the government has nothing to do.

You must login or register to view this content.

Nauru is a member of the United Nations.

The state of Taiwan has 23 million people (as many people as Australia), it has massive industry and a thriving middle class.

Taiwan is not a recognized state and is not a member of the United Nations.

So to those of you who believe that nation states are legitimate legal entities, please explain to me the criteria by which one applies to become a nation state and how you believe this is anything other than a pack of fictitious bullshit made up to justify theft and slavery.

Citation: Sythe.org.

Fine, I'll explain more...I was referring to the example of Nauru and Taiwan, because recognizing Taiwan fully as an independent nation formally will strain ties with China, a much more important/powerful country, some countries will not necessarily see it as beneficial. And also, like others said before, there are plenty of countries that AREN'T in the UN, that doesn't mean they're not real countries.

TECHNICALLY, I suppose by my philosophy, anyone has the RIGHT to declare themselves as a country because in my opinion, everyone has a right to everything (Government/society limits these freedom in various aspects to maintain order and stability..blahblahblah) . But if others do not recognize your country then your declaration is meaningless and therefore you're not truly a sovereign state.

That's exactly the problem. Why isn't Taiwan considered a state? This bias hasn't been resolved by your posts.

By permanent population you need a set minimum of people.

As for territory you need a set minimum of land.

And by "Goverment" you need to have a country/State constitution.

Where's my 10Mill?

Taiwan doesn't fit those categories?

Are you sure?