my dear dears lowell len & probably others
when you think only countries & not people are
sovereign
you forget the most important thing
your personal sovereignty
you may even thus overlook your divinity in this
countries are there ok
& are sovereign
& even divine if you wish
but they are merely optional truths & beauties
& in the eye & mind of the beholder as it were
cosmic law & order states that everyone is a law unto
themselves
& equally divine in the world
countries may & indeed can be there for you
but they certainly arent there for everyone
& they arent there for everyone because
among other things
they arent there for everyone
& it is everyone we are talking about
in everyones land
of which bp is a part
& which is the true state of nature as well
everyone is presumed sovereign & indeed divine unless
they object
& even then they are still humored & entertained
is that clear
--- "Lowell G. McManus" <
mcmanus71496@...> wrote:
> I've got to agree with the philosophy and the logic.
>
> Lowell G. McManus
> Leesville, Louisiana, USA
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "L. A. Nadybal" <lnadybal@...>
> To: <BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Saturday, July 23, 2005 10:04 PM
> Subject: everyones land was Re: [BoundaryPoint] Re:
> Cyprus - SBA Maritime
> Boundaries
>
>
> > Everyone's?
> > How about landlocked countries? What sovereign
> interest in the high
> > seas could have accrued to them over time? The
> high seas would have
> > to be an area of no sovereignty if you believe
> sovereignty is
> > indivisible.
> > Can sovereignty be shared between all entities on
> earth at the same
> > time without having been divided amongst them?
> > I think the high seas are no ones' - a ship on the
> seas carries
> > sovereignty along with its movement - there is no
> sovereign right for
> > Cuna, for example, to prevent the Swiss Navy from
> plying the high
> > seas. If it tried to do so from one of it's ships
> on the high seas,
> > it would be illegally extending its sovereign
> powers beyond the ship's
> > railing to impinge upon another. If, for example,
> the Cuban's shared
> > sovereignty with the rest of the world on the high
> seas, then it could
> > legally exercize whatever portion of those
> sovereign rights it felt
> > possessed to be an agressor and protect them (or
> take whatever share
> > of that sovereignty the Swiss possessed in an act
> of conquest).
> >
> > If the high seas are "everyone's", we have chaos.
> Only if it's no
> > one's, a regime where denial of any legal rights
> pervades do we have
> > arm's length distances, clarity and a system where
> a violation of the
> > peace is always an impermissible action that
> cannot be justified by
> > any assertion of rights whatsoever.
> >
> > Isn't philosophy neat? Thoughts?
> >
> > LN
>
____________________________________________________
Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs