You are trying to argue that someones country that they made for fun, has as much right to nation hood as the USA. If you asked most of them, in the most serious way possible, if you wanted you nation to be real, they would say no. For you to say, brashly, that those nations are real, is one of the most confounding thing conveyed near me I have ever seen. Let me clarify. Most of those are a fun excersize. I will not, with fire and steal, take Malaysia, Singapore, Brunei, Indonesia, adn Timor-Leste. For goodness sakes. You need to calm down. Just because you are angry that nations exist and that people aren't singing Kumbaya with their hands held, doesn't mean you should spew the verbal diarreah that is your point. Sealand can be a nation in my heart, but Hobartstown and Victoria cannot. The latter can be if I am a fan of their history, but none of the land the claim, if their land is even worldy or real at all, they don't have a legal right. Now, you must be wondering, even though you may have stopped reading my rebuttal, "why should I listen to 'legal rights'. That doesn't exist in countries." Yes it does, for one. If you think just because some fringe political scientists think they have no right to the land, doesn't mean it is true. Most of the things as a whole do not conform to """reality""". If you think a place where no country and law exists, I believe you'll like the starvation, cold, and death you'll face when no one wants to give you shelter and food, and you must survive the way your sheltered self can. And that way is bad. You romanticize full freedom because you have never tasted the bitterness of it. And, for my final statement, I'll leave you with this. If society was detrimental to humans, and they didn't want it, why didn't they opt out sooner?

Addendum 1: Why did you join this channel? You have rarely, maybe even never posted here. And you seem to hate elitist things, but heraldry is elitist.

Addendum 2: I want my Pulitzer