2006-06-19 16:52:23 · 6 answers · asked by kentuten 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
The government is based on state law. So, by that.. NO.
2006-06-19 16:57:14 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
When one looks up the definiation of a state we find that a state needs four specific things in order for it to be a state. One of those is people. This also happens to be the definiation of a nation as well with a few added details. The people in a nation tend to have similar values, beliefs, language and sometimes religion.
It is along these lines then that we can have a nation without a state. But for most people these lines are blurred and one usually doesn't exist without the other.
2006-06-19 17:01:58 · answer #2 · answered by Kelly H 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
ask the Indians. They saw themselves as individual nations.
and most nations in this world are actually not "nations" but states. So to answer your question, Yes, but not in the same way we see things in this Nation.
Also a true Federalist Nation, as the Democrats would like to create, would have the Federal Government Governing your daily lives not the state as it is now.
2006-06-19 17:20:53 · answer #3 · answered by Rox 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
if your state is based on either economy, or ethics.
And your nation is based on land.
All you need is a country without either economics or ethics to have a nation without a state.
2006-06-19 17:08:34 · answer #4 · answered by the enchanted wizard of rhythm 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
a nation I think is people with common culture and language or race, so yes, the kurds have a common culture but no country of their own. Marx also said a stateless society is possible, but has yet to happen
2006-06-19 17:20:45 · answer #5 · answered by mel18 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
yes i think so. most are divided into regions, not necessarily "states" though. but some i think are not divided. like lichtenstein.
2006-06-19 16:57:49 · answer #6 · answered by K8 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋