Yes and we should all agree on who is going to represent us. Otherwise the losing party is disenfranchised.
You're not going to get unanimous approval for anything when your group size is several thousand people
Maybe the groups should be smaller then
Also, smaller groups mean more representatives, which means unanimity/consensus as you say would also be unlikely at the national level.
I don't believe in nations, either, so that's not a problem for me
Sorry to inform you of this, but nations exist whether you want to believe in them or not.
Just like God, right? God exists regardless of whether I believe in Him?
The difference is, there is evidence for nations existence while there is none for any floating man in the sky who judges you when you die.
What evidence? There’s no borders on the earth. All of the evidence for nations is the same as evidence for god: stuff people made.
And? The stuff people made provides no evidence for God. Only that they revere a being. The systems, power structures and diplomatic missions that people have created point to real, tangible evidence of nations that exist, have motives and can enact meaningful change in the world. God has none of that.
Are tables and chairs any less real simply because people created them?
Don’t religions have power structures and diplomatic missions?
Tables and chairs actually exist in the physical world. They’re objectively real. Countries - like gods - are inter subjectively real.
Sure, but people and organizations act through those. Not gods.
Tables and chairs are nothing more of amalgamations of wood, metal and paint. Nations are nothing more than amalgamations of people acting through institutions. Imo, they're both equally real, because we as intelligent beings have created them and ascribed them meaning and power.
Yes and we should all agree on who is going to represent us. Otherwise the losing party is disenfranchised.
You're not going to get unanimous approval for anything when your group size is several thousand people
Maybe the groups should be smaller then
Also, smaller groups mean more representatives, which means unanimity/consensus as you say would also be unlikely at the national level.
I don't believe in nations, either, so that's not a problem for me
Sorry to inform you of this, but nations exist whether you want to believe in them or not.
Just like God, right? God exists regardless of whether I believe in Him?
The difference is, there is evidence for nations existence while there is none for any floating man in the sky who judges you when you die.
What evidence? There’s no borders on the earth. All of the evidence for nations is the same as evidence for god: stuff people made.
And? The stuff people made provides no evidence for God. Only that they revere a being. The systems, power structures and diplomatic missions that people have created point to real, tangible evidence of nations that exist, have motives and can enact meaningful change in the world. God has none of that.
Are tables and chairs any less real simply because people created them?
Don’t religions have power structures and diplomatic missions?
Tables and chairs actually exist in the physical world. They’re objectively real. Countries - like gods - are inter subjectively real.
Sure, but people and organizations act through those. Not gods.
Tables and chairs are nothing more of amalgamations of wood, metal and paint. Nations are nothing more than amalgamations of people acting through institutions. Imo, they're both equally real, because we as intelligent beings have created them and ascribed them meaning and power.
Perhaps. But this is the system we have.