(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.

Copy and pasted segments. /facepalm

I'm trying to prove a point. You trying to gain post count by spamming my threads is pointless imo.

Im not spamming just saying, if you want to prove your point, and some more of your own opinions and points of view so others can see your point.

Whatever is from sources is listed as a source in my thread. If you actually read all the content you would know what I am talking about.

You cannot enter into your own state because you do not have a standing army to repel the invasion, by the local governing body of where you happen to be. If you lived on an island this may be different. Plus it is doubtful the UN would recognize a one person nation.

you're failing to see the hierarchy. And a member of the UN is nothing. China wasn't a member until recently. Other countries have to allow you. You are not a country for these reasons:

1) you don't have a defined territory. Whatever you "own" is in fact owned by actual country you live in. They can take it at any time. On top of that, unless you've paid off your house, you don't even own that, the bank does.

2) You can't have a population because you don't have a territory. You most likely don't live in a house unless you live with your parents or are a working adult (which not to be mean but I doubt you are because you haven't gone through the standard country lessons yet). Therefore you have no territory for any population to live. On top of that, if you said your house was your territory, as soon as you went to the grocery, your population would be 0. Meaning you have no permanent population.

3) You have no government. Will any world leader meet with you? Then you are not recognized as a country.

4) You can not make deals because no country would view your "deal" as valid. Mostly because you aren't even powerful enough to have your own territory


PLEASE NOTE: Due to common language replace country with state. People assume a US state or area within a country when they hear/see state.

If we assume the validity of the theory of citizens and countries and self-determination:
1. What are the legal criteria for valid secession if not the 1933 convention?
2. Assuming 1933 convention rules, why am I not allowed to secede?
3. Assuming 1933 convention rules, why is Nauru a country and Taiwan not?

I am asking the questions in the framework of the legal structure proposed by nation state proponents. I am not asking why or how international politics / demographics have determined the current situation.

Whether or not a country can be established is a purely social matter. There is no set definition of if you reach Point X, you are now officially a country. The moment other states recognize you as a legitimate, independant nation, you are one. It's that simple. And what it takes to get recognized is different in every single situation.

I think you are trying to argue (poorly) in favour of the constitutive theory of statehood, but all you did was answer a question I did not ask.