Re: Pirates and Privateers

On Tue, 26 Sep 2000 22:43:49 -0400, "Laserlight"
<laserlight@quixnet.net>
wrote:

>Allen Goodall handed me a straight line:
>> Because nations don't exist in a vacuum.

And I did too! (Check the name spelling. *G*)

>Let's consider cases.
>a) The AE has a constitution, a legal code, a court system,
>police and military forces, an executive and a designated method
>of succession (and, being Alarish, a method of secession as well,
>but that's irrelevant).  Is it a nation?

Only if other states think it is.

>b) There are no other governments is in existence (the Kra'Vak
>having been pretty thorough).	Does it stop being a nation simply
>because there's no one else around to recognize it?

If no one else is around, then they're pretty much free to call it
whatever
they want. *S*

>c) AE declares itself independent of the EU.  The New Israeli
>government recognizes it but no one else does.
>
>d) Take case C and add other governments to the list.	Is there a
>critical point--is so, what?

That is a very, very good question. Ummm... it's a nation to those who
recognize it. Remember, there are Arab nations that don't consider
Israel a
nation. When Israel was created, so was Palestine but it took over 50
years
for them to get as far as they have while Israel was accepted by the
west
almost immediately.

I would suggest that the critical point is when the UN recognizes it, if
your
universe has the UN... *S*

>> In the Confederacy's case, Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation
>(where
>> all slaves, in all states -- including Rebel states -- were
>declared free)
>
>You're sure about that "all states" part?

Well, okay, I simplified. In fact, most of the Northern states had
abolished
slavery, but not all. Delaware, Maryland, and Kentucky were all
technically
Northern states and all had slavery. The Emancipation Proclamation
didn't
actually free slaves in those states. Neither did it free slaves in
territory
already captured by the Union, which meant the entire state of Tennessee
as
the Union had captured it.

That was on paper. What's interesting is that the Emancipation
Proclamation
basically told the Confederate states that they had 100 days to get back
in
line with the Union. If they did, they would be recompensed for their
slaves.
It was Lincoln's equivalent to saying, "Don't make me come over there
and
smack you." In reality, it signalled the death knell of slavery. There
was no
way that slavery would survive for any length of time after the war if
all
territory henceforth captured by the Union resulted in freedom for
slaves. It
was actually an acute piece of writing. It meant that the fastest path
to
freedom was for the Union to capture territory. If Britain or France
joined in
to help, they would actually be slowing down the pace of freedom. 

>Or economic.

*L* There's a difference? Actually, you are quite right. It's rare,
though,
that politics and economics aren't intertwined.

Allan Goodall		       awg@sympatico.ca
Goodall's Grotto:  http://www.vex.net/~agoodall

"Surprisingly, when you throw two naked women with sex
toys into a living room full of drunken men, things 
always go bad." - Kyle Baker, "You Are Here"