Re: CHAT: Californian secessionists (was Re: Californian vowels [was Re: Likin

Quoting Andreas Johansson <and_yo@...>:

> Thomas Wier wrote:
> >Quoting Barry Garcia <barry_garcia@...>:
> >
> > > Oh really? That explains why the most lucrative agricultural areas
> in
> > > the state are both located in central and northern California. LA
> has
> > > entertainment. Northern has Silicon Valley and Ag. Central CA has
> > > agriculture:
> > >
> > > For my county alone (Monterey), the crop summary for the state in
> 1999
> > > was:
> > >
> > > $2,441,832,450
> > >
> > > so.....like.......nyah!
> >
> >And there are actually political scientists who think we should
> >abolish the states and make them provinces! Heh. _Multus sanguis
> >per vias fluebat_...
>
> And exactly what would the difference be? AFAIK, neither "state" nor
> "province" has a hard-and-reliable definition when it comes to degree
> of autonomy etc.
Like I said in my other post, the difference is to a large
extent arbitrary.  If you are going to make a distinction,
however, there is more historical reason to feel that
"state" implies noticeably more sovereignty than "province"
does.  Indeed, and I forgot to mention this in my last post,
the Canadian provinces were originally much more tightly
bound to their Federal leash than they are now;  it has only
been the threat of secession by Quebec, and to a lesser extent
Alberta, that increased local control over federal.

> If it was mere name change, I'd appreciate it alot - I'm still
> reg'arly confused by the pair "state" = "independent nation" (or
> political structure thereof) and "state" = "more-or-less autonmous
> unit within a "state" in first sense" (a la USA).
I think the first sense should be amended to make it more general:
"political entity". "Nation" implies many other characteristics
about that entity that don't necessarily inhere in other political
subdivisions (e.g., that it has a common currency, that it has a
common high and/or low culture, that it has a common language, etc.)
As for why the US "States" (capital-s) were given that name, it is
because they originally considered themselves wholly independent
"nations" (in your sense of that word).  As late as the Civil War
in 1860, Lee could give his reason for supporting the Confederacy
as being he couldn't bring himself to fight against his "country"
(i.e., Virginia).  Most reading the Federalist Papers would find
it an alien world; consider the first two descriptive articles of
the Articles of Confederation (1777):

"II.  Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence,
and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this
Confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress
assembled.
III. The said States hereby severally enter into a firm league of
friendship with each other, for their common defense, the security
of their liberties, and their mutual and general welfare, binding
themselves to assist each other, against all force offered to, or
attacks made upon them, or any of them, on account of religion,
sovereignty, trade, or any other pretense whatever."
<http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/artconf.htm>

A "firm league of friendship"? That sounds more like the European
Union, or NATO, than a nation state.  The word "State" then, had
a much more normal meaning if you look at these original sources.
It has come to be diminished only to the extent that our Federal
edifice has come dwarf everything, even at the expense of foreign
nations not formally federated with us (the US federal budget, at
around 2 trillion dollars, alone constitutes about 7-10% of the
yearly wealth spent in the world).

In any event, in the more conservative parts of the country,
such as the Mountain states and the South, the pre-1860 notion
of "state-sovereignty" is still surprisingly widely held, as
Bush Interior Secretary, Gale Norton, reminded us all so
stunningly this year.

==============================
Thomas Wier <trwier@...>

"If a man demands justice, not merely as an abstract concept,
but in setting up the life of a society, and if he holds, further,
that within that society (however defined) all men have equal rights,
then the odds are that his views, sooner rather than later, are going
to set something or someone on fire." Peter Green, in _From Alexander
to Actium_, on Spartan king Cleomenes III

Reply