When debating my friend earlier today, an interesting dispute occurred. He states that the government is control over a demographic people, while I say it is control over a geographic region. Obviously, the contrary to what I’m saying makes England, Germany, etc. not even countries, really, etc.
However, he brought up an interesting point:
“Wandering Arab tribes, such as the Bani Hashim and the Banu Quraysh, had no land, yet had kings that ruled over them.”
Am I missing something here in the idea of what government/State is?
You should have just clarified that governments are a form of involuntary association. Having it follow you wherever you go is even worse because there’s no way you can leave a country.
A government is a territorial monopoly. However, governments have infested the globe and work together. All of this works against the freedom of the individual. And when governments attack each other’s territory the people suffer under it too.
Governments are a combination of both. Just because the wandering tribes had kings does not invalidate the goegraphical control arguement: the geography just changed as the tribe wandered. Likewise the demographic arguement holds but is flexible and constantly changing ie. immigration and territorial expansion of gov.
You are both right, though I think the geographical arguement holds more water.
You can find it in any basic “Public law” book. A “state” has three elements 1. Population (demographic control), 2. Land (geographic) and 3. Power (it can make laws etc.). Those arab tribes you mention are not states, are “nations” (in spanish makes more sense), so they can have a “goverment” but never being a state.