I know this doesn’t fit into the “logic” forums well, but it was a response I received directly relating to Prof. Casey’s video with Prof. Woods about Ireland and its Stateless history. This was the response;
I guess it depends on what you mean by state. Early Ireland had a feudal, monarchist society. Ireland had many kingdoms rise and fall in the period referred to as stateless.
There were powerful kings such as Brian Boru. Church law existed. Ireland was invaded (Norsemen, English, Normans) with the invaders exercising control.
He also seemed to say the Roman Republic wasn’t a state.
This is what I mean about the libertarians/Austrians. The above facts don’t fit the narrative so those things are just ignored or deemed not to be “states”.
Matt_Georgia: Your correspondent has a point. Many terms in philosophy generally (justice, knowledge, existence), and in political philosophy in particular, are essentially contested.
As should have been obvious from my discussion with Dr Woods, I never denied that Ireland had many little kingdoms. What I was trying to get across was that such kingdoms bear very little resemblance to what we know as the state today. Law in those little kingdoms was essentially independent of political control.
Of course, the Roman Republic was a state in some sense of the term, as was the Roman Empire. But, once again, for the most part, Roman law was not a function of political power.