What is a Nation.

CDNBear

Custom Troll
Sep 24, 2006
43,839
207
63
Ontario
Wikipedia defines the term as a group of people sharing a common language, culture, history, ancestry and/or territory.

Duhaime's law dictionary defines the term as the same.

While wikipedia, uses members input to come to its conclusions, Duhaime uses legal precedent, historic interpretation and cited, globally recognized definition.

But these definitions, as simplified as they are, in those citations, were determined to some extent, by international law, regarding Nations, States and Sovereignty. As exampled by Emmerich de Vattel, the grand father of international law, as he stated in 1758,

"A nation, or a state, is a body politic, or a society of men united together for the purpose of promoting their mutual safety and advantage by their combined strength.

By the very design that induces a number of men to form a society which has its common interests, and which is to act in concert, it is necessary that there be established a public authority, to order and direct what is to be done by each in relation to the end of the association. This political authority is the sovereignty and he or they who are invested with it are the sovereign. "

This is clarified, in the confusion caused by two states occupying a similar territory, by the writ of "States bound by unequal alliance". Which states,

"We ought therefore, to account as sovereign states those which have united themselves to another more powerful, by an unequal alliance, in which as Aristotle says, to the more powerful is given more honour, and to the weaker, more assistance.

The conditions of those alliances may be infinitely varied, but whatever they are, provided the inferior reserve itself the sovereignty, or the right of governing its own body, it ought to be consider as an independent state, that keeps up an intercourse with others under the authority of the Law of Nations"

Further clarified and strengthened by, the writ regarding "Treaty of Protection".

"Consequently a weak state, which, in order to provide for its safety, places itself under the protection of a more powerful one, and engages, in return, to perform several offices equivalent to that protection, without however of divesting itself of the right of government and sovereignty, that state, I say, does not, on this account, cease to rank among sovereigns that acknowledge no other law than that of nations."

All of which, of course, influenced King George III, in his Royal Proclamation, of 1763. Solidifying the rights of First Nations, as title holders and acknowledging First Nations as sovereign.


 
Last edited:

Cannuck

Time Out
Feb 2, 2006
30,245
99
48
Alberta
Wikipedia defines the term as a group of people sharing a common language, culture, history, ancestry and/or territory.

Duhaime's law dictionary defines the term as the same.

While wikipedia, uses members input to come to its conclusions, Duhaime uses legal precedent, historic interpretation and cited, globally recognized definition.

I guess family farms are nations then as this definition applies to them. Thanks for proving my point yet again CB.
 

YukonJack

Time Out
Dec 26, 2008
7,026
73
48
Winnipeg
Since all communications are done by speaking/hearing/reading etc. the same language, Language is the first and foremost definition of a nation. A country with two official languages, in spite of the fact that there is only ONE operating language from coast-to-coast is a nation weakened by political correctness.

In North America there should have been one English speaking, one French speaking and one Spanish speaking country.

What we have, instead, is three countries engaging in of pathetic hodge-podge and petty bickering.
 

Cannuck

Time Out
Feb 2, 2006
30,245
99
48
Alberta
Guys.....play nice.

??? If you don't want me to respond to posts by CB, just say so.

In this particular case, this thread backs up my position quite nicely on this topic. I've said repeatedly that the word "nation" gets tossed around so indiscriminately that it has, for all intents and purposes, become meaningless. I believe the government needs to clearly define what a nation is or isn't. That way we don't have to deal with the spectacle of our PM calling Kweebeck a nation and CB and his buddies will know exactly what is required of them.

If the Wikipedia definition is to be used, then family farms fall within the definition of "nations" so either that definition needs to be turfed or we need to accept the inevitable consequences that will arise when some farmer decides he wants to negotiate nation to nation with the federal government. I understand CB's emotional responses to this issue but we shouldn't let emotions dictate policy.
 

CDNBear

Custom Troll
Sep 24, 2006
43,839
207
63
Ontario
??? If you don't want me to respond to posts by CB, just say so.

In this particular case, this thread backs up my position quite nicely on this topic. I've said repeatedly that the word "nation" gets tossed around so indiscriminately that it has, for all intents and purposes, become meaningless. I believe the government needs to clearly define what a nation is or isn't. That way we don't have to deal with the spectacle of our PM calling Kweebeck a nation and CB and his buddies will know exactly what is required of them.

If the Wikipedia definition is to be used, then family farms fall within the definition of "nations" so either that definition needs to be turfed or we need to accept the inevitable consequences that will arise when some farmer decides he wants to negotiate nation to nation with the federal government. I understand CB's emotional responses to this issue but we shouldn't let emotions dictate policy.
lol...

The only one using emotion, is you.

I use legal findings to support my case. Not my imagination, supported by cleverly quoted snippets, like yourself.

But I'm not surprised at all, that you would ignore the bulk of my post, and chose the part I actually cited as the simplistic view.

Doing anything more, would force you to actually put forth a valid rebuttal. Complete with some facts to back it up.

But I'm sure you feel your lack luster, simplistic reply, is sufficient.


I guess family farms are nations then as this definition applies to them.
How so? They do not meet the standard as was clearly pointed out in the part of my OP that you chose to ignore. For that very obvious reason.

Or are we right back at the beginning where your imagination trumps reality?
 

Cannuck

Time Out
Feb 2, 2006
30,245
99
48
Alberta
How so? They do not meet the standard as was clearly pointed out in the part of my OP that you chose to ignore.

I know they don't and that's the point. There is simply too many definitions for "nation". There needs to be clarity. You post numerous definitions (remove clarity) and then say I'm wrong that there is a lack of clarity. It's quite clear that you have an emotional attachment to this issue. You want very badly to be considered a nation and have all the benefits that go with it. Your emotional needs are not really high on my priorities list though...sorry.(and not quoting it is not the same as ignoring it)
 

CDNBear

Custom Troll
Sep 24, 2006
43,839
207
63
Ontario
There is simply too many definitions for "nation".
I can see that you brought something along with you to show that my OP, containing the fact that there is an internationally accepted standard for a 'nation'.

Are you unfamiliar with how this works?

Since you have already clearly established your position on NATO rules and obligations. Would the definition encompassed in NATO policy be worthy of your support?
 

Cannuck

Time Out
Feb 2, 2006
30,245
99
48
Alberta
I can see that you brought something along with you to show that my OP, containing the fact that there is an internationally accepted standard for a 'nation'.

The international community does not dictate to Canada what nations it does and doesn't recognize. We keep rehashing the same arguments. Let me know if you have something new.
 

CDNBear

Custom Troll
Sep 24, 2006
43,839
207
63
Ontario
The international community does not dictate to Canada what nations it does and doesn't recognize.
It does, when Canada is a voluntary signatory, accepting the terms, and conventions.

How does this position go in hand with your position on our involvement in NATO operations?

Or does your position that international community does not dictate to Canada, only apply when you support the obligations that Canada has accepted by signing binding accords?

We keep rehashing the same arguments.
Nice deflection, but no, I keep bringing more evidence to the table, you keep hiding behind your imagination, offering nothing in the way of a valid rebuttal.

Let me know if you have something new.
Fine, runaway yet again.
 

CDNBear

Custom Troll
Sep 24, 2006
43,839
207
63
Ontario
More childishness?
Projecting doesn't become you.

I haven't run anywhere. As said, when you come up with something new, let me know. Ta ta
Nice deflection, when you can't provide some evidence to counter mine, pull the old Joey 1,2 and move the goal posts.

I'll be here waiting to see your great skills as a debater.

But feel free to runaway, while you think of a way to support your strawman, or come up with another fallacy to use, instead of actually rise to the challenge.
 
Last edited:

petros

The Central Scrutinizer
Nov 21, 2008
109,348
11,418
113
Low Earth Orbit
I'll be here waiting to see your great skills as a debater.
Oh ****...the Debaters....

I gotta keep my RadioOne sched handy....

DayTime
Wednesday11:30 AM - 12:00 PM
Saturday1:00 PM - 1:30 PM

Damn...was yesterday which I slept through thanks to shmokes and pancakes.

Can I give you guys points?
 

petros

The Central Scrutinizer
Nov 21, 2008
109,348
11,418
113
Low Earth Orbit

CDNBear

Custom Troll
Sep 24, 2006
43,839
207
63
Ontario
Still nothing Cannuck?

I guess when your opponent doesn't buy your goal post moving, strawman, false analogy, negative proof, hasty generalization, appeal to motive, appeal to ridicule, and quote mining fallacies.

Running away is all you can do.