@Santa: Federations suck even more than countries in general. Regional division of administration, fine. But different laws? Ridiculous.

Thucy, you're trying to impose a very simple view on what is one of the more complicated of human endeavors: International Diplomacy. :)

And I'm not sure on this, but I'd hazard a guess that both NK and SK agree that there should be one Korea. They'd just probably violently disagree on what KIND of "one Korea" there should be.

blah blah blah, offtopic ad homine rants... ok, are you guys done? have you enjoyed that, you can get back to it after i have my own off-the-wall spiel... but for the moment feel free to read my responce to the first page when things were vaguely sensible. Actually feel free to skip it if you don't like ideas...

"You could Mexico the 52nd state and pretty much solve the problem of illegal immigration in one fell swoop"

No, don't be silly, that would move the illegal immigration problem ~1,000 miles to the south.

"Well, Pennsylvania could always abolish their sales tax. But I'm talking silly." - at the moment it seems like individual states are competing for employment (for their citizens) which is a bit silly if you ask me.

There are about two alternatives. 1) form a union, just like a workers union but for states... oh wait you have one of those.... well then, take some collective action to prevent states from under-cutting each other when it comes to competing for business.

2) stop trying to encourage people to come and live in your state. Life is growth, but it also includes decay and death. It is not completely unreasonable to expect the life of a state to be the same. Accept that your state is in decline and let it happen. New life and new growth actually requires the decay of old life, if we were all immortal we'd have no space for children... Likewise, new and better institutions and organisations need space and the replacement of old out-dated things.

Whether this means in business terms, allowing a company to fail, and finding a Japanese car manufacturing firm come and employ american workers... or allowing a state to dissolve and have it's population move to more successful centers. The cities would still have to compete to provide the best of the best options, which may include some forward planning on the parts of designers and city developments, but this is possible.

"I doubt they're in jail for their "beliefs." They're probably in jail for breaking a law."

you know 1) it is possible to make the expression of certain beliefs against the law, and 2) it is possible the the original boston tea party was also against the law. Does this make it any less just?

"@Santa: Federations suck even more than countries in general. Regional division of administration, fine. But different laws? Ridiculous."

que?

both north and south korea may think there should be a unification effort, but neither is willing to give up what they have right now.

Self-determination apparently only applies to new territories which were subjected to colonial control but have since become free...

@santa/manganese, what is the difference between a federation (like germany) and a union (like the US) or a supra-national entity (like the EU)

oh... I had to go into the way-back machine to realize what we are talking about. I guess the state system isn't efficient, but its the price you have to pay for a huge swath of land with a diverse people.

@orathiac
it is possible to make the expression of certain beliefs against the law, and 2) it is possible the the original boston tea party was also against the law. Does this make it any less just?

I completely agree. I am all in favour of all potential jurists letting the legal system hear the words ''Jury Nullification'' loud and clear. In the UK we have Bushells case and Clive Ponting as great precedents. I think that, certainly the former, applies in the US too. One in the eye for the legal system, I recommend mentioning this if you get called for jury service, just to make clear that you are not interested in the edifices of the legal system, but rather justice.

@ orathiac
''Self-determination apparently only applies to new territories which were subjected to colonial control but have since become free... ''

I don't know about you, but I am hard pressed to think of a ''new territory'' which was not in itself colonial. Certainly the US was colonial in the extreme vis a vis the native population.. I wonder where their ''self-determination'' comes in this equation?

look of course i understand how complex international relations can be... that's my major.

i just think that if a sovereign nation ever voted to apply for american statehood (this i think would only happen if the world really takes a turn for the worse), then the US is obligated to accept them. that's just my personal feeling though i'm not sure what if anything the constitution has to say about it.

Regarding the native population, if PR has the right to statehood because of "self-determination", do the natives have the same right to create an independent state?

The Constitution doesn't really have much to say about that.

But I'd posit the position that the US is not required or obligated to admit any non US territory to the US without the consent of both the US and the territory in question.

And before anybody asks, I'm talking about the present day, not in the past.

Just because X country wants to join the US doesn't mean we have to let them if its not to our mutual benefit.

but i think the us would see puerto rico as being to its benefit

Santa: I was more referring to the statement somebody made earlier about some random territory wanting to join the US.

Far as I understand, PR has three options on the table at the moment. Statehood, status quo, or independence. The US Government's position on this is that whatever the people of PR want from those three options is fine with us.

Jury Nullification - sounds like something done when the Jury doesn't come back with a verdict which the king likes, and the king happens to be a comic book fan - so nullifies the jury... :p

Jury nullification allows the Jury to effectively say that, by their conscience, they don't agree with the law being invoked to prosecute the accused. They will therefore choose to acquit even despite the evidence and, most importantly, in the face of a Judge's direction otherwise. It is a very potent weapon which I expect the ''system'' to withdraw in the near future (e.g., The Auld report), but for the time being it still stands.

Jury nullification has mostly been used to let lynch mobs off the hook.

I'm not sure if this is the same concept, but I know something similar was used to nullify many of the more draconian punishments in England. At least until the 19th century, a crime involving 12 pence was theoretically punishable by death in England. Jurors would undervalue the items stolen as to avoid this, for example.

Hello Jack the most famous recent case was that of Clive Ponting. A courageous civil servant whistle blower ( and later historian of WW1). Less well known is the case against those who used direction action to sabotage the export of ground attack aircraft to Indonesia to help them in their attempt to crush East Timor. I can provide several similar examples if you like.
The British government were particularly miffed at the Ponting case, I seem to remember.

sabotaged aircraft, reminds me of the case in ireland where an irish woman pleaded not guilty on the basis of self-defence, she was only damaging those US aircraft to protect lives and property in Iraq... i think she was acquitted.

@ orathiac. I agree. IMO this is one of the chief factors behind the whole extra-judicial farce at Guantanimo. Juries can't be trusted by the elite.

Ponting must be pissed that he went to jail for nothing since Argentina admitted that the sinking of the Belgrano was legal.

@santa No it isn't.

Yeah I'm fairly sure we don't legally have to let them in... I'm saying we ought to be obligated to though. Thats what I'm saying.

Also yes I support the right of Native peoples to independence if they want it. We've fucked them so much already... they deserve it.

You cannot just hand out independence willy-nilly without violating the 'rights' of others. Notice what the disaster of South Sudan's "independence" has done, simply turned a civil war into a conflict between two armed states. Ditto India & Pakistan. Ditto the Yugoslav successor states. Ditto the Israeli-Palestinian issue.

Thucy is advocating an infinite regress of independent states, creating a situation where territorial borders are constantly unstable and in flux.

Granting independence to Native peoples would be hugely destabilizing. Large populations of people would be evicted from currently disputed land.
Nice sounding rhetoric often makes bad policy.

@santa No it isn't.

Yes it is?

@santa No it isn't.

An argument would be nice.

I agree.