> Kenneth Boyd wrote:
> > Of course, it would help if we had some [hyper/hypo]sophisticates who
> > could handle the idea of more than one state on the same land.
On 9 Dec 96 at 10:09, jonesr@gatwick.geco-prakla.sl wrote:
> I can't see how that could work!!
>
> Surely there would bed lots of property disputes, even if the land were
> owned by the state only. This would result in war, IMO.
Only if we see state as being inherently territorial. If we view it
as social structures (which I think was what this thread was
originally concerned with) we can have a multitude in the same
physical territory without any problems, provided each is prepared to
accept the others existence. For example, let's say I want to live
and practise buddhism but you want to live and practise christianity.
This is only a problem if I don't want to allow you to practise your
faith or vice versa.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2i
Comment: Requires PGP version 2.6 or later.
iQCVAwUBMquT0F5rBERarcK9AQE+OgQA0GvDuwGVLfPT5cAJDd4CT/ZQgvlA+M+j
szF522lsUk1DEA2svyCRL3rnhPgnzcdavrHVq0TRoxpzejSomztVKBSCu8DYn8q1
EKI9Sm6fNtRyJ47io5u5RCapVeFbwDWIpyr6cEQL36Jiwez/XAQg5EkSZPVuYY0P
eUjFya53zXk=
=MHHq
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-- Martz <m.traynor@ic.ac.uk> For my PGP key, email me with 'Send public key' as subject an automated reply will followPerilous to us all are the devices of an art deeper than we possess ourselves. Tolkein