tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31671374.post6656012584939575215..comments2023-10-30T07:10:34.610-07:00Comments on Underbelly: Can There be a "Nation" without a "Constitution?"Bucehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16452321114185736762noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31671374.post-86738331993489925562016-08-10T17:00:33.840-07:002016-08-10T17:00:33.840-07:00I think this may be something was struggling with...I think this may be something was struggling with when I admitted I hadn't distinguished 'nation' from' state. One again, I recognize that this i s another of the many topics on which I am unencumbered by real knowledge, but some thoughts.s<br /><br />Anyway--as I wrote I wondered what I would do with the "polity" that is Tony Soprano? Is he part of a "nation"? Or is, he, perhaps, just sucking lifeblood out of a population which may or may not have identity? Saddam Husein, same question. Come to think of it, I suppose it is true that most "states" through history have existed for no worthier purpose. IN the ease, perhaps the thing to say is that the "nation" defines itself, if as and when it doe, by way of its opposition to the parasite in chief (example, 19C Europeans virus "the crown," however defined).<br /><br />Slightly closer to your tone, I guess a lot of "polities" (weasel world) present the spectacle of elites scratching and clawing at a each other while the masses gape in astonishment. I think that was Syme's point about the Roman Republic--at least, what I took away from it.<br /><br />A serious political theorist would chuckle indulgently and set me straight. Or not bother to set me straight.<br /><br />Bucehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16452321114185736762noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31671374.post-80556761528295032312016-08-10T03:36:31.607-07:002016-08-10T03:36:31.607-07:00It depends on what you mean by "nation."...It depends on what you mean by "nation." (I think I know what you mean by "constitution.")<br /><br />Your basic thug-ocracy does not have a constitution, in your sense. It is only bound together by the henchmen's allegiance to their warlord, and the henchmen's power to command collective fear. There is no legitimacy whatsoever, apart from whatever it is that makes a henchman a henchman: usually threats and bribes. And if you're not a henchman, all there is is fear. Apart from this, the only constitution of such places is the warlord's health and desire. Constitutions--be they written or unwritten--legitimate. No legitimacy; no constitution.<br /><br />This obviously describes some godforsaken hellholes on this planet today. (I think we can agree that meaningless written constitutions do not count.) It also, if you believe Jacob Burckhardt, described many Italian Renaissance cities, ruled by families who amused themselves by poisoning each other. The families may have had an internal constitution of sorts (families often do), but they were otherwise thugs, with no legitimacy as we would understand it today.Ebenezer Scroogenoreply@blogger.com