To LUGNET HomepageTo LUGNET News HomepageTo LUGNET Guide Homepage
 Help on Searching
 
Post new message to lugnet.off-topic.debateOpen lugnet.off-topic.debate in your NNTP NewsreaderTo LUGNET News Traffic PageSign In (Members)
 Off-Topic / Debate / 24700
24699  |  24701
Subject: 
Re: We'll take in your poor, your homeless, your oppressed...
Newsgroups: 
lugnet.off-topic.debate
Date: 
Thu, 8 Jul 2004 20:51:48 GMT
Viewed: 
1152 times
  
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek wrote:

Okay, I think that makes some sense.  But couldn't the dominant nation simply
impose upon the seceeding nation a fee of, say, a billion dollars per person to
effect the secession?

In advance? Would you sign up for that? Or do you mean after the fact against
people who were in already? I would tend to think (and I'm guessing here) that
every new law (except basic common law, you can't dodge the prohibition against
stealing) is a new secession opportunity, just before it goes into effect.

Well, maybe this is a better hypothetical:  What if the dominant nation
(accepting, though, that the minarchist idea kind of trumps this) simply buys
all territory surrounding the smaller nation and then charges the smaller nation
a billion dollars per person to cross the surrounding territory, airspace, or
what-have-you?  The dominant nation is no longer the invader, but it still
wields crippling power over the subjugated state.

You mean kinda like in Iraq right now? Guerilla warfare always is more expensive
for the invader than the guerillas... it's just hard to convert to victory
unless the invader tires of the game.

That probably won't happen, hypothetically, until after Nov 2.  Hypothetically.

Also, why is the neighbor "vastly more powerful"? In the end state there are a
lot of small nations, none of whom has much power to mount vast invasions.

Yeah, that's a problem for my example.  How about a number of parties
contractually bound to one another and acting in concert against a party that is
weaker than the aggregated contract-holders?

Dave!



Message has 2 Replies:
  Re: We'll take in your poor, your homeless, your oppressed...
 
(...) Hey, you know, I always (well, not really always) wondered why they don't do that with those "Native American" casinos you see popping up all over the place these days. Apparently they're able to fight that sort of thing off. (20 years ago, 8-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
  Re: We'll take in your poor, your homeless, your oppressed...
 
(...) Honestly, I don't know the answer to that one off hand. What do you suggest? Armored VTOL aircraft or spaceships? Or maybe just never leaving? (20 years ago, 8-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Message is in Reply To:
  Re: We'll take in your poor, your homeless, your oppressed...
 
(...) In advance? Would you sign up for that? Or do you mean after the fact against people who were in already? I would tend to think (and I'm guessing here) that every new law (except basic common law, you can't dodge the prohibition against (...) (20 years ago, 8-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

120 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
Entire Thread on One Page:
Nested:  All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:  All | Brief | Compact

This Message and its Replies on One Page:
Nested:  All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:  All | Brief | Compact
    

Custom Search

©2005 LUGNET. All rights reserved. - hosted by steinbruch.info GbR