Lands without government

One of the reasons for recognizing nations is to have a single point of contact for coordinating things like war and peace, contract disputes, handing over (or not) alleged criminals for trials for crimes done elsewhere...

The whole point is to have that encapsulation--a single entity that manages the big picture relations between the people of different areas. It reduces complexity and confusion.

Without that, if you want to arrange for an end to armed conflict between your people and another "nation," you have to find representatives of all the groups and get each of them to agree to a cease-fire separately.

If you can deal with a single government, that government has the responsibility of enforcing the agreement on its internal groups.

But when there's no central authority for an area from which hostilities flow, what choices do you have?

Cut a deal with the groups that will deal, and accept that the rest will keep attacking you? That may not work if the holdouts have enough power to inflict serious harm.

Arrange for somebody else to conquer the holdouts, and then negotiate with you on their behalf--putting in a government you can deal with?

Invade the area yourself, and destroy the holdouts, and keep them suppressed? That might get the non-holdouts cheesed off at you too, and get you into a bigger problem.

Do punitive invasions where you tear into the holdouts and their temporary allies, and then leave? See above.

There are several places in the world where the nominal central government doesn't actually have effective control. One of them, insofar as control of military actions is concerned (and that probably extends into other fields as well), may well be Iran. That was their fall-back plan, anyway. I don't know who is talking to who about what, though I hope that secret (and no doubt face-saving) talks are underway about the uranium.

Interesting times

Gratitude

For the Fourth we went to the "biggest little parade" in Token Creek. They had about 17 "floats" and a street dance afterwards. The rain held off until the parade ended, but the dripped probably didn't damped spirits much. The Token Creek tradition is for water fights between the float riders and the spectators. And between spectators.

In the pre-game water fights, one family had equipped their youngsters with heart-shaped backpack water bladders connected to small squirters. I wish they'd had those when I was young. We made do with what few unbroken water pistols there were--the seams always cracked--and syringe bodies.

The littlest girl in the group—perhaps 5 years old—was short enough that she kept getting squirted in the face in the melee. She would wince, almost cry, grit her teeth, grin, and squirt back.

I took a brief hike down Portage to see the rest of the short parade route, find out how long were the food lines, and learn where the portajohns were. I saw nobody I knew, but I got more attention than I expected. After I rejoined the family I realized that I was pretty much the only man present with a button down shirt and long pants. Everybody else was dressed for a splash in the heat.

Before the parade began someone sang the Star Spangled Banner, of course, followed by a recording of "Proud to be an American."

I wondered, not for the first time, if that's the right framing. I'm proud of the ugly kludge bookcases I made so many decades ago. They fit the purpose and have for many family moves. They're something I did.

I'm grateful to be American. I'm grateful to be a man (and I trust my wife is grateful to be a woman). I'm proud to have helped in several experiments, and grateful for the chance. I'm grateful for our children.

As for the larger American project, I have not served in office or in the military, though I have done some teaching (and paid my taxes and looked for the least objectionable candidates and helped with a friend's unsuccessful campaign). I've tried to live and teach Christian values and the courtesies of the culture. I'm not sure those are enough to give me the right to be proud of my contribution. I suspect gratitude is safer for the soul.

The Fourth as seen by Neptunus

I wasn't introduced to his work until after he died. His meditations on the celebration.

Declaration of Independence, still applicable?

Today is the 250'th anniversary of one of the most important documents in the West.

Some of the text is timeless: "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights" and so on. Those apply.

But there's more. I rarely pay attention to the list of facts "submitted to a candid world." Quite a few were specific to the occasion, and aren't so timeless.

How well does the recitation of injuries map into a modern situation?

Just for the fun of it, suppose we pick the PoV of citizens of random small EU country other than Belgium, and for George III read the EU establishment. And take the worst-case/worst-face for the local situation, whether it is completely justified or not. Are there parallels for the old complaints in the new situation?

• He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good. I don't know the details well enough to guess.
• He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them. I don't know the details well enough to guess. There's no pool of land to draw from in Europe, so there's no exact parallel.
• He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only. I don't know the details well enough to guess.
• He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures. There are other ways of "fatiguing them into compliance;" e.g. lawsuits and judicial rulings.
• He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people. Over-ridden, yes. Very much so.
• He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within. I don't know that details well enough to guess at what might be comparable to this.
• He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands. Just the opposite – importing large quantities of foreigners without regard for whether they integrate well into the existing society, and making the current citizens reponsible for their care.
• He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers. Over-riding local legislatures and judiciaries, certainly.
• He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries. When agreement with the masters is a criteria for appointment...
• He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance. I think we can all find examples there and here.
• He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures. Not so much. Ignoring the necessity for a military, yes.
• He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power. Not so much. Which, given European history, is refreshing.
• He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation: This sounds very much like EU.
• For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us: The current version would be quartering large bodies of foreigners among us.
• For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States: This seems to be a problem, if reports are to believed.
• For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world: Not sure this applies. It might, but I don't know the regulatory details.
• For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent: The individual countries impose their own taxes. Regulations, though...
• For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury: The UK famously decided to remove this right from many cases.
• For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences "Transportation" isn't a current punishment, but "pretended offences" such as mean tweets seem to be treated like "careless speech" in wartime.
• For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies: I don't know of a parallel.
• For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments: As noted above, this seems parallel to EU
• For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever. Not strictly parallel; the individual legislatures exist.
• He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us. Maybe the no-go zones?
• He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people. No obvious parallel.
• He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation. For mercenaries put colonists and it might apply.
• He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands. No obvious parallel.
• He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions. Not Indians exactly, no.
• In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people. I don't know the details well enough to find a parallel to this.

With some revisions it might apply. But "mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed."