This has a self-reinforcing effect. Because power vacuums are not well documented, we assume they are infrequent and therefore unlikely. However, the people who follow this chain of logic are victims of availability bias, because power vacuums by their nature do not produce Procopius types. Historically, you needed to be king/emperor for quite some time before anyone would bother to write the history of your rule.

To give an example: the "Third Intermediate Period" of Egypt lasted 400 years. That means Ancient Egyptians went longer with no Pharaoh than the time between John Locke's lifetime and the present day. For four centuries no one built any monuments to kangz and shit. People didn't even want kangz at all. They were happy to have NOKANGZ. When they finally got a kang again he was installed by foreigners, not by "Egyptian" people, to the extent it makes sense to call people "Egyptian' 400 years after the last Egyptian kang died.

Furthermore this isn't some isolated incident, nor does it appear to be infrequent AT ALL. Most nations did not come into existence until after the 18th century. National governments are not only historically rare, they are historically short lived, especially when the nation is very large. To the contrary, for most of recorded history it was argued that kings should prefer large populations over large territories. The USA was the first nation to challenge that wisdom, and at the time it was founded it consisted of only 13 states.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5563472&forum_id=2#47888407)

A great example of this is the Qin dynasty. These people went apeshit reforming EVERYTHING. They deleted 30% of the written vocabulary and permanently altered Chinese writing forever. They ruled from 221-206 BC.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5563472&forum_id=2#47888431)

1. There's very little to read. No one really put any thought into this at all until the 1500s. Furthermore almost everything worth saying had been written by the late 17th century. The 19th century gave us JS Mill but also and Karl Marx, and the 20th century gave us Lenin and Francis Fukuyama. It's all dogshit.

2. It's easy as fuck to understand.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5563472&forum_id=2#47888460)

Why? What's the point? Who came up with this idea? What was he thinking? Hint: he was a French faggot and a lunatic.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5563472&forum_id=2#47888478)

https://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5563457&forum_id=2

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5563472&forum_id=2#47888544)

But you're right that these distinctions are also in some ways preposterous. What makes England (or France) not "German?"

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5563472&forum_id=2#47892517)

The law is the rival of divinity; the oracle of religion; the source of instruction; the artificer of right; the guardian and promoter of good morals; the rudder of the state; the messenger of justice; the mistress of life; the soul of the body politic.

III. What the Law Does.

The law rules every order of the state, and every condition of man; it governs wives and husbands; youth and age: the learned and the ignorant, the polished and the rude. It aims to provide the highest degree of safety for both prince and people, and, in renown and excellence, it is as conspicuous as the noon-day sun.

IV. What the Law Should Be.

The law should be plain, and not lead any citizen to commit error or fraud. It should be suitable to the place and the time, according to the character and custom of the state; prescribing justice and equity; consistent, honorable, worthy, useful, and necessary; and it should be carefully noted whether its provisions are framed rather for the convenience, than for the injury, of the public; so that it may be determined whether it sufficiently provides for the administration of justice; whether or not it appears to be contrary to religion, and whether it defends the right, and may be observed without detriment to any one.

V. Why the Law is Made.

Laws are made for these reasons: that human wickedness may be restrained through fear of their execution; that the lives of innocent men may be safe among criminals; and that the temptation to commit wrong may be restrained by the fear of punishment.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5563472&forum_id=2#47892637)