> > 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.
Problems arise in such a state system, when someone from one state commits a crime against someone of the other state. If (in an extreme example) murder is not illegal in one state, but is in the other, then what happens if one of murder state citizens kills one of the non-murder state citizens. Extradition cannot occur, because the criminal is already in the territorial boundaries, and then there is the confusion as to whether the person can be tried or not. Therefore, the only way in which non-territorial states can be successful is were the laws of all states involved do not contradict. And if they don't contradict, then there's no point in having a multitude of states, you might just as well have one single territorial one.
Drakir
--------------
Richard Jones
jonesr@gatwick.geco-prakla.slb.com
--------------
"We are the New Breed,
We are the Future."
--------------