You could maybe say that German cars are are built taking the German inspections into account, I doubt it's high on Tesla's list of concerns (both in terms of being a US company and market size, for now).
your link refers to "pannen" which means breakdowns, e.g. your car dying on the highway.
OPs article refers to a report by TÜV which inspects cars every 3 (for older cars every two years) to ensure that they dont have any flaws and are compliant with regulation. This inspection is mandatory in Germany.
source: am German, but not a subject matter expert.
Some would argue that the colonialism that created the status quo was pretty obviously discriminatory. Removing the last vestige of their sovereignty would be like saying “now that we’ve undemocratically seized your land, changed how it was governed and moved in enough people to vastly outnumber you, come join in our democratic process where you’ll be overruled by our superior numbers!”
That's how conquest, war, and societal progress works. Should we go back and create entitlements for all the European tribes folded into monarchies over the last two millennia?
Entitlements are antithetical to equality. Continually attempting to right wrongs from the past simply carries them forward.
In a lot of places in Europe minorities have varying degrees of autonomy, protections and special rights (use of language, schools, sometimes more). History and legal systems are complicated and a lot of it doesn't make sense without the historical context.
> “now that we’ve undemocratically seized your land, changed how it was governed and moved in enough people to vastly outnumber you, come join in our democratic process where you’ll be overruled by our superior numbers!”
That's sort of how the world works. If you can't defend it (through power and/or political will - you have strong friends that you have a mutually beneficial relationship with) then it's not your land. There's literally no group of people that have lived on some piece of land since the dawn of humanity. In fact there have been untold thousands of groups of people wiped off the earth because another group decided they wanted to live on the land they once lived in.
Is that what you'd say if a few guys with guns came and pushed you out of your home, so that they can live there? Historically, it's correct: that's how the world works.
Correct which is why we formed tribes which allowed groups of people to form a common culture and bond which protected each other. And tribes would firm alliances with other tribes and work together to destroy rival tribes. These groups of tribes became nations which have evolved into the political organization of the nation state we see today.
Now if a few guys with guns pushed me out of my home my nation state would send more guys with better guns to remove them and my property would be back in my possession.
What happens when your "nation" doesn't have a state, or the state youre in isn't made up of your "nation", or you just have a phony rump state, as in the case here? Those guys get to get pushed around?
Just to make sure - it's fine to ignore legal treaties, etc., because if "they" aren't willing to take up arms to defend what's theirs, that's how the world works. But when I run you out of your house because I'd prefer to sleep there, then laws and the legal system are a perfectly reasonable avenue to expect to save you?
Hmm? I said the opposite - that the law is all we can rely on. Without the law, we’re left with might makes right, which is precisely how the world works.
I often see "discriminatory" used as if it proves something irrefutably. When I don't go to a shop where employees are rude, I certainly do practise discrimination on the basis of communication culture. Also I enjoy my customer's rights, and do the right thing by creating incentives for politeness. There are discriminations which are legal, and illegal, moral, and immoral, pragmatic, and useless. And everything in between.
Citizenship is a modern institution; yeah, the Athenians had it, if you're OK with a notion of citizenship that extended only to a small percentage of the population. But even in ancient Athens, the majority of the population were slaves.
In feudal Europe, most people were serfs or vassals; they came with the land, a bit like trees and game. The only people with rights were aristocrats, and then only really if they had land. Poor people might have had some rights in law, but the judge was the local baron; it was meritorious for the sovereign to promulgate "the King's justice", but it didn't happen much.
The change came with the Age of Revolutions; rights are something you have to seize. To my fury, I remain not a citizen, but a subject, because the English Revolution was led by landed gentry, not by the populace.
The idea of universal rights is a fine idea; but not having been seized, they don't exist.
It pretty much is. A government does govern two things, a population and a corresponding land area. You may try to have one without the other, but that would lead to massive problems because of the way humans and their home area interact.
If you govern a population without a land, you are practically instantly at war with some other population because both populations will want their way of life as well as their property rights enforced around the place they call "home". For a current example, see the palestinian exile population, who have a government but no land of their own, thus leading to constant conflict with their host countries.
If you govern a land without a population, you are lacking any kind of compass and attachment to values. Land alone is a dead thing, and a government cannot just be recruited from land, it has to be people doing the governing. Basically, there is nothing to govern without a society.
Citizenship can have a number of definitions, but the loosest one is something like "currently inhabiting the land area of that corresponding government". You may change those definitions, introduce various classes of citizenships, modify the ways in which it can be obtained. But for the aforementioned reasons, any definition that doesn't involve something like "a citizen is strongly associated with a land area and comes from a corresponding populace (governed by a corresponding government)" is a weak and fragile definition that will not last the test of time and human interactions. Note that the government part is in parentheses, because actually governments are far more interchangeable than population and land area.
"Its two headquarters buildings in Rome enjoy extraterritoriality".
The article claims they have no territory, but what they mean is there is no territory capable of supporting a military + institution. I don't know this is a practical counterexample.
Nevertheless, it is interesting to note that clubs and private militaries, and independent autonomous intelligence agencies exist, even if they are on the extreme end of what could be considered a "government".
The catholic church in general is kind of a counterexample in certain aspects, but only because of reasons. The Maltese Order is just one aspect of the general weirdness of the church organisation overall, there are also the separate international legal entities "Holy See" and the Vatican state. Of those three, only the Vatican state actually has any sovereign land area, but of a rather symbolic size. The Vatican also has a kind of citizenship, but it is only awarded for the duration of being part of the churches government. But in all those things you only see shadows and fragments of the past that are in slow and steady dissolution. The dissolution would be far quicker if e.g. Italy were hostile to them, but the opposite is true, probably because of the popular support and gain in international influence for Italy.
How so? A government must have those it governs, those must be then members of the set of people whom it governs.
You can call it something besides "citizenship", but maybe we're talking about different terms, or you have a more technical definition implying more than simply membership under a governing party?
Either way, this is the basic definition of a citizen, so trying to divorce the two seems futile to me:
"A citizen is a member of a political community who enjoys the rights and assumes the duties of membership."
They govern over non-citizens as well, e.g. over residents and visitors to the geography where the government has/claims sovereignty, but the non-citizens tend to get fewer rights than the citizens.
I understand your distinction I think...however the parent comment (about abolishing citizenship) is still (on the face of it) advocating anarchy. Degrees of citizenship must exist always, even when the "official" line is that none do - as you state even in the case of "equal citizenship" there is still the degree of citizen, and non-citizen, so really you can never remove that (without also removing government).
Being in the position of abolishing _birthright_ citizenship is a very different stance than abolishing the practice of citizenship outright. I think you are speaking of "second class citizenship" e.g. immigrants or temporary who do in fact benefit from and are expected to follow the laws of the land, but who do not get e.g. voting rights.
I.e. perhaps the view is the equalize all practical citizens under the law (which is possible but difficult to do wrt to land ownership and community security, especially).
My interpretation of the parent comment was that citizenship should not be restricted by the circumstances of birth.
Countries would still be governed by those who live within their borders, but you wouldn't be discriminated against based on your place of birth, e.g., you could move around freely.
Or, maybe more practically, greatly ease the requirements of immigrating and becoming a citizen of countries.
Couldn't the same argument be advanced against inheritance from family, who after all differ from tribe only in selecting by narrower genetic criteria?
The native peoples of north american were not a contiguous group. Plenty of first nations were allies of the US. Of those that were variously at war with the US, conflicts resolved in treaties dictating new borders, not some form of abject right stripping subjugation or medieval rent seeking.
The idea that as victors, the treaties you entered into with the opposing side are somehow not meant to be upheld is not a righteous notion. The US' repeated violation of promises made to the various first nations is a detestable part of our nation's history. That modern jurisprudence has starting to uphold treaties our country entered into and never formally revoked is a good thing. A nation should be its word, not merely a bludgeon.
Never heard of first nations but as somebody who grew up around Indian country I think we should approach this area with a little more scholarship and learn about what actually happened instead of jumping to conclusions.
Yeah, I thought it was a Canadian thing as well. Coming from an area that was heavily populated by Indians, it was a relatively large part of the curriculum back in my younger days. And I never heard that term in relation to Native Americans.
I'd be a bit reluctant to quickly judge someone's exposure to the various terminology around this topic. CGP Grey has a good video on the terminology as used in the US [0]. From the video: "Talking to people over the last [sigh] 5 years revealed a strong correlation: the closer a person had ever been to a reservation, the more likely they would be to use the word 'indian'. The farther, the more likely they would be to use the word 'Native American'." and also "At the time of writing [this video/2019], 'Indian' is used by Indians on Indian reservations to describe themselves"
Firstly, I actually have no idea if there was a war with this particular tribe that resulted in this particular treaty. That's not always the way it went; sometimes it was just diplomacy and trade (with the odd group of assholes sprinkling violence in for fun; it was rarely 100% peaceful, even when it was mostly peaceful).
Second, what do you think winning a war means?
It's not always -- usually? almost never? -- a matter of one side eliminating or crushing the other to the point of abject subjugation. Rather, once there's a clear "winner", the losing side is usually willing to accept a unfavorable treaty that gives the victor whatever land or trade benefits they were after, and in return for the losing side not saying "fuck it" and trying to take as many people as possible with them, the winning side generally agrees to leave existing power structures largely intact and leave them some part of what's theirs.
> It's not always -- usually? almost never? -- a matter of one side eliminating or crushing the other to the point of abject subjugation.
If you decide they're going to live then yes. You need to show them that if they can't or won't unconditionally surrender and change their ways then they will in fact be abjectly subjugated and their lives will be miserable. Eventually enough of them will agree that it's not worth it. That was more or less the the USA approach with Japan in WW2. The thought being that they will fight to the death if they feel there's any sliver of hope. So nukes were dropped which showed there was not and that it wasn't worth fighting anymore.
The other option is to just slaughter them. This has been used more frequently throughout history.
While the Potsdam Declaration called upon Japan to surrender unconditionally, it did, in fact, lay out the conditions for the surrender, including that the armed forces of Japan would be permitted to disarm and return home, they would retain sovereignty of their four principal islands, and that the Japanese people would not be enslaved or destroyed as a nation.
After the atomic bombings -- and the Soviet advance -- Japan accepted these conditions, unconditionally, instead of holding out for better terms, like retaining conquered territory.
(Edit: Now, if you want unconditional surrender, the German Instrument of Surrender, now there's an unconditional surrender.)
JUSTICE GORSUCH delivered the opinion of the Court.
On the far end of the Trail of Tears was a promise. Forced to leave their ancestral lands in Georgia and Alabama, the Creek Nation received assurances that their new lands in the West would be secure forever. In exchange for ceding “all their land, East of the Mississippi river,” the U. S. government agreed by treaty that “[t]he Creek country west of the Mississippi shall be solemnly guarantied to the Creek Indians.” Treaty With the Creeks, Arts. I, XIV, Mar. 24, 1832, 7 Stat. 366, 368 (1832 Treaty). Both parties settled on boundary lines for a new and “permanent home to the whole Creek nation,” located in what is now Oklahoma. Treaty With the Creeks, preamble, Feb. 14, 1833, 7 Stat. 418 (1833 Treaty). The government further promised that “[no] State or Territory [shall] ever have a right to pass laws for the government of such Indians, but they shall be allowed to govern themselves.” 1832 Treaty, Art. XIV, 7 Stat. 368.
There's not one single way to end a war, and not all treaties are the result of war. Regardless, the US, and the colonies before the US existed, fought wars with many Indian tribes. But in most cases, either to end wars or to avoid them, treaties were made between the United States government and the various Indian tribes to define how the entities would deal with each other. Those treaties, like any international treaty, give obligations and responsibilities to both parties. If the tribe still exists, then the obligations still exist.
In the case of Canada, the ‘war’ was won/avoided by giving them concessions and treaties, that were reneged on and violated by the colonial government.
The current government tend towards ‘truth and reconciliation’ is an attempt (or at least a gesture) to investigate and rectify these wrongs and treaty violations.
I’m sure the same holds in the US in areas where there was not a wholesale genocide.
And the results in Canada offer positive and negative examples to choose from when it comes to the current governments approach to indigenous issues.
I only say that to caution advocating for other countries to adopt the approach Canada has taken. I am of the view there were a lot of classic examples of well intentioned policies with disastrous results.
At the same time, I don’t know enough about the issue to offer alternative policy without worrying about the sensitivity of the issue.
I was neither praising nor deriding Canada’s approach, I was providing context for the parent.
The logic of ‘conquest->hegemony’ does not quite work in parts of North America because the ‘conquest’ was not a traditional one, but rather because of duplicity and breaking treaties, which- in a rules based order- typically have methods of restitution.
Parts of the USA, like the Russian conquest of Eurasia, were traditional conquests where the invaders drove out the inhabitants by force, but that is not a universal narrative in the European colonization of North America.
It possibly matters because (at least in the U.S.) this specific data element has substantially different legal obligations than anything else that might be placed into a customer data structure:
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CFR-2012-title12-vol1/xm...
"(i) General rule. No national bank, and no director, officer, employee, or agent of a national bank, shall disclose a SAR or any information that would reveal the existence of a SAR. Any national bank, and any director, officer, employee, or agent of any national bank that is subpoenaed or otherwise requested to disclose a SAR, or any information that would reveal the existence of a SAR, shall decline to produce the SAR or such information, ..."
A bank might not want to aggregate data, within one IT system, if part of the data has the very unusual property that a subpoena must be declined.
