Re: Not just me

On Tue, 12 Sep 2006 18:27:22 +0000 (UTC), "Eliyahu" <lrooff@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:


Andy Katz wrote:
On Mon, 11 Sep 2006 22:07:53 +0000 (UTC), "cindys"
<cstein1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


2. Secondly, the government needs to ensure that no group in the USA is
ever permitted to establish a "State within a State."

Hmmm.

I tend to agree with this.

But define a state within a state (let's exclude Native Americans who
hold treaty and reservation rights to the lands that remain to them).

Would such a law impact say rabbinic courts, or Amish councils?

No, because the people under the jurisdiction of those courts and
councils are accepting it voluntarily as members of a specific group or
organization. They have the option to walk away and ignore the
findings or rulings of those courts without risk of incarceration or
other punishment. (Other than being excised from the group or
organization.) If those religious courts tried to operate prisons or
impose their rulings on non-members or on those who refused to
recognize their authority, then there would be legal problems.
Similarly, those groups cannot establish private armies or militias,
privatize public roads and freeways, or restrict "outsiders" from
entering their borders beyond what is generally allowed for private
property. (About the only "work-around" I could see would be if a
group were to purchase a huge section of undeveloped land from a
private party or parties and build their city/state entirely with
private funds including streets, utilities, buildings and all the other
necessities that make a civilization function. In such a case, they
could arguably restrict access to the community by non-residents, just
as those in a gated community do, but they would still be under the
jurisdiction of the State and Federal authorities.)

Okay. I certainly agree that restricting a group's ability to police
others without their direct consent is both desirable and necessary.

The more realistic problem is the tendency to establish de facto
ghettos in which outsiders are unwelcome and where the residents
develop a seige mentality of "us against everyone else".

Indeed.

Andy Katz
"Modesty is in thought, not clothing."

Joel Shurkin

************************************************
amkatz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Public School was a waste of my time (Re: When even a Republican can see it....)
    ... England had a system of private ... courts) for about a third of a millenium. ... or does one observe that the poverty rate was ... that the welfare state is the reason there are so many poor people? ...
    (rec.arts.sf.fandom)
  • Re: Not just me
    ... Would such a law impact say rabbinic courts, ... Similarly, those groups cannot establish private armies or militias, ... or restrict "outsiders" from ... as those in a gated community do, but they would still be under the ...
    (soc.culture.jewish.moderated)
  • Re: "Fair Use"
    ... at the first key point you mention: "Private non-commercial individual use." ... I'm beginning to think that Microsoft and other big publishers deliberately ... >> factors are only guidelines and the courts are free to adapt them to ... > ultimate aim is, by this incentive, to stimulate artistic creativity for ...
    (microsoft.public.windowsxp.general)
  • Re: How to pass a class to a method
    ... I'm doing something similar in my app but considering the other posts I'm ... thing I noticed is it's not possible to restrict the type passed in, ... classes even more of a poor practice if they really should be private. ...
    (microsoft.public.dotnet.languages.csharp)
  • Re: I dont know about anyone else
    ... You can have "private" content, limited to friends, and can ... restrict who can post follow-ups etc. ...
    (uk.singles)