well put
all people or at least normal people do sensibly prefer de jure to
de facto
& just as sensibly prefer de facto to an active military front
in that order
but the difficulty for people is that states dont really sense or
think like normal people do
indeed states dont realize they have personal power
& so they dont
indeed their very existence is a subversion & denial of personal
power
& regardless of what they may claim
states actually resort first to brute force
rather than last or not at all to it
& not only normal people but even the actual brutes themselves
know better than to behave like that
but just as a state is a local monopoly on violence
so a person is an even more local monopoly on real power
& that is why everyones land is an idea whose time is coming
a state in which the divinity of the individual is acknowledged to
be equal to that of the state
that will be a state with real personal power
anyway
thats my opinion
& thanks for letting me have it too
i deserved it
--- In
BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "Peter Smaardijk"
<smaardijk@y...> wrote:
> --- In BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "aletheiak"
<aletheiak@y...>
> wrote:
> > you can have your opinion
>
> Thanks. You can have yours, too.
>
> > & i dont mean to be argumentative
> > but in fact de facto always trumps de jure everywhere
> >
> > & normally a new de jure will emerge from a new de facto
> >
> > rarely does a former de jure resume after a subsequent de
facto
> >
> > this is because the rule of law is only an extension or
> > appurtenance of brute force
> > created by those in power for their own convenience
> >
> > indeed de jure is just a subtler means of force than brute
force
> >
> >
> > another way to think of it is that de jure is a subset &
refinement
> > of de facto
> > just as de facto is a subset & refinement of an active military
> front
> >
> > & with claves especially
> > given their inconvenience & dysfunction etc
> > it it unlikely that defunct ones would ever be deliberately
> > reconstituted if they could be avoided
> >
> > rather the general drift is almost entirely in the opposite
> direction
>
> I agree. Especially with your words "normally", "rarely". (By the
> way, the fact that de jure is more subtle than brute force is one
of
> the reasons I prefer de jure.) Baarle-Hertog was once just a
set of
> provincial enclaves. But they reconstituted those as
international
> ones when Belgium became independent.
>
> Peter
> >
> > --- In BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "Peter Smaardijk"
> > <smaardijk@y...> wrote:
> > > --- In BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "aletheiak"
> > <aletheiak@y...>
> > > wrote:
> > > > confirmation of the demise of karki
> > > > paragraph number 4 in
> > > > http://bisnis.doc.gov/bisnis/country/981203az.htm
> > > >
> > > Yes, that happened on January 13, 1990, according to the
> > website of
> > > the embassy of Azerbaijan in China (
> > > http://www.azerbembassy.org.cn/rus/back_chron.html ).
> > Needless to say
> > > that they call this occupation illegal. Armenian sites all
> > question
> > > the Soviet maps that show the enclave, of course (calling it
a
> > dirty
> > > trick played upon them by Moscow).
> > >
> > > So de facto the enclave is no more, but de jure, in my
opinion,
> it
> > > will continue to be there until some agreement is reached
on
> > its
> > > status - Azeri or Armenian.
> > >
> > > Peter