The impossibility of a nationless/unclaimed no-man's-land.

Benj96

A thought experiment. The world leaders decide that in order for societies to be consentual and not imposed on citizens born into it, they must offer a non-societal zone of the world in which people could escape to be "free" - not under law, policy or regulation. Where there is no societal structure in place.

This no-man's-land is agreed to be a habitable one - not in the middle of the ocean or antartica, nor the highest mountain tops. It is to be accesible, fertile and abundant. It should have all the resources neccesary to live self sustainably and comfortably.

Thus, through many years of debate, they agree collectively to place this no-man's-land in the heart of Europes temperate climate, shrinking the borders of three or 4 countries marginally - compensating economically for their loss of resources in the process. They remove all evidence of civil infrastructure, rewilding it to a pure natural and untouched state.

Now the world leaders say "Be content and conform to society. Be civil, outstanding citizens. Otherwise get lost and go to " No-mans-land" where you can be as antisocial as you like.

There is a paradox of this nationless region. If it is truly without law, there is nothing to stop it being claimed and made one person/groups new country. If surrounding countries agree by international law to enforce/impose the rule or law of "non-ownership" then this no-man's-land is subject to law and the will of other societies. Thus it cannot be truly free from law or the will of societies.

Second paradox, is that if hundreds and thousands of disenfranchised citizens from around the world flock to this region to start anew. Do they not bring with them society? Does law, custom, culture and policy not creep in inevitably as they all interact and Co-habitat in No-man's-land?

Thus I believe there cannot ever be a habitable region of the world that is not considered a nation with society. Being truly "free" is impossible. That's not a bad thing neccesary. But an observation I wished to highlight

unenlightened

There is no impossibility that there should be an uninhabited land; it is only a contradiction that a land uninhabited by humans is inhabited by humans.

The other contradiction is that there be a community of the unsocial. The wild frontier tends to have a Davy Crockett king, and is always temporary and moving on - it is currently located on the Moon and Mars, and Elon Musk is the self-appointed King.

frank

↪unenlightened

On a tiny island lived a little village where no one knew of the outside world. They thought there was nothing but water in all directions forever.

At night they would sit by the fire and sing songs to the moon.

One night, while the village crowded round the fire, one young man spoke up and said he believed the moon belonged to him.

The crowd stared at him, but as he spoke of a revelation that had come to him in form of a bright light, some approved, for they had long believed in lights that speak hidden truths. But others in the village thought it was ridiculous. They scoffed and laughed behind his back. "If any one of us owns the moon, it's not that moron" they said, and laughed heartily.

In time the village became divided, with competing theories about who had a right to claim the moon and why. Over the years the division went deeper and people used it as an excuse to vent frustration and disappointment. The world would go back to paradise if only the other side was gone.

Finish the story as you see fit.

unenlightened

Finish the story as you see fit. — frank

Then they had a fight and all died.

I like sushi

↪Benj96

Nations don’t actually exist in a physical sense. You scenario does a decent job of bringing this to people’s attention … or does it? I will have to read responses above mine.

NOS4A2

↪Benj96

The mistake is conflating society and government. Government is compulsory while society is largely voluntary.

Remember Thomas Paine’s Common Sense.

SOME writers have so confounded society with government, as to leave little or no distinction between them; whereas they are not only different, but have different origins. Society is produced by our wants, and government by our wickedness; the former promotes our happiness POSITIVELY by uniting our affections, the latter NEGATIVELY by restraining our vices. The one encourages intercourse, the other creates distinctions. The first is a patron, the last a punisher.

The government is anti-social, while the same cannot be said of the people who oppose it. Government seeks to regulate society and have it conform to its will. The people who oppose it do not. I doubt that the people seeking to escape government control would bring it with them. But they would no doubt bring society and forge a new one.

There are governments who protect the freedom of people in such zones, like the Sentinelese people, for fear that they may be interfered with. But they are not completely helpless. Anyone who has shown up there has been met with proper hostility and force, proving that they are not entirely dependent.

Note that somehow the leaders were able to come together consensually and work together without any government forcing them to do so.

frank

Then they had a fight and all died. — unenlightened

:groan:

The impossibility of a nationless/unclaimed no-man's-land.

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions