Bush to visit Europe

[aleph_null1]

Originally posted by Lucern: [Edit] My my, I never thought I'd join the dread Zhentarim!

On that note, I just lost the only avatar I've ever liked here, for some fat pink dragon [img]graemlins/hehe.gif[/img]

Are governments really sub-constructs of the nation-state construct? I wonder if they might not be equal ... or maybe even the other way around.

Important question (I think): Is territory necessary to define a government?

It's generally accepted that it is for a nation-state to have any meaning, but what of a government?

[Jonas Strider]

apparently no one understood what i actually said (eventhough some claim to) but that's okay. everyone has there own perception of things and i accept that. i won't counter. peace. [img]smile.gif[/img]

[Lucern]

(aleph_null) Are governments really sub-constructs of the nation-state construct? I wonder if they might not be equal ... or maybe even the other way around. Important question (I think): Is territory necessary to define a government?

While I didn't mean to imply inferiority, or even chronological chicken vs the egg order, it seemed clear enough when I posted that a government is functionally housed within the confines of a nation state. This is a more interesting question though; I can think of nations/govts that are examples of a government constructing a nation, and a nation constructing a government. However, where I draw the line is a bit arbitrary. How was Afghanistan's new government formed? I could say the people elected the government, and so they made it. Of course, that would neglect the US's role in choosing the type of government. In addition, the government might do some self-defining through laws and enforcement of those laws, shaping itself and the nation of Afghanistan.

Both are social constructs, which was my point. A lot of us take for granted that a world of nation-states is natural somehow, rather than a collection of socially constructed, adapting entities.

Geography does not always a government make, at least not recently. The UN, while physically taking up space, is a government with no country (or lots of countries, depending on how you perceive it).

I think the primary component of the character of nation states and governments is their strictly defined power (power defined as the capacity to make someone do something). This does not seem to end at the border, nor is it ever 100% within its borders. Well, maybe the Vatican, lol. The kinds of power held and used by nations/governments are also important. Does the nation have a monopoly on organized violence? the last word on trade? the right to define social relationships (which would otherwise be cultural values)?