Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2014 July 28

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

July 28

Why do every piece of land have to be owned by a country?

Why do every piece of land on Earth have to be owned by a country? Are there any human colonies in Antarctica or in the deep seas? 65.24.105.132 (talk) 01:23, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Every piece of land is not owned by a country. See Antarctic Treaty System. That being said, if there is some plot of land which is not under the control of a state, who is to keep people living there from lawlessness and the like? --Jayron32 01:36, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

More to the point, who is to stop the people living there making it a state? Iapetus (talk) 13:36, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

The Antarctic Treaty only suspends the operation of national claims to Antarctica, but they still exist. However, a large section of Antartica is not claimed by any country. This is mentioned deep in the article under Antarctic Treaty System#Legal system. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.100.189.29 (talk) 11:57, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

See also Bir Tawil - 2,060 km² of land on the Egypt-Sudan border, claimed by neither state. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:43, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

That's because each of them thinks it belongs to the other (so that the 'winning' side can claim Hala'ib) - not because it's really part of no country. AlexTiefling (talk) 13:53, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

The Congo Free State was not owned by Belgium, but was effectively the personal property of King Leopold II of Belgium. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 02:09, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

And ask the Congolese how well that went for them... --Jayron32 02:19, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

This is a strange question and appears to treat the term "piece of land" as if it can't also be a "country", which it can, because some countries are very small indeed. Wherever there is a human population, some form of government arrives, even if it is only a personal dictatorship. Every human community is subject to some sovereign power, and if a piece of land with people on it has no state above it (as, for instance, Easter Island has Chile), then the local power is also the sovereign power. In the case of a piece of land with no people on it, it is almost certain to be claimed as part of the territory of one or more countries, and the whole of Antarctica is subject to territorial claims, some of them overlapping. I wasn't aware of the exception of Bir Tawil mentioned by AndyTheGrump, and I shall be surprised if even two or three more exceptions can be identified, but of course large areas of the world have little effective control, because they are so remote from security forces. However, with regard to the law of the sea, much of the world's surface is not claimed as any country's territorial waters. Moonraker (talk) 02:56, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

65.24.105.132 -- Land not owned by anybody would be terra nullius. Libertarians have been looking for places outside the jurisdiction of any state to set up a libertarian utopia since at least the 1970s (see Minerva Reefs) but without much luck... AnonMoos (talk) 03:42, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Australia was settled in 1788 on the legal basis of terra nullius, and it took till 1992 for that fiction to be turned on its head. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 07:00, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Even trivial little rocks just barely sticking up above the ocean surface are subject to fiercely contested ownership, which may even become violent. Such competition occurs not because the rocks themselves have any value, but because they come with large exclusive economic zones attached, where the sovereign has the sole right to determine who may catch fish, drill for oil, etc. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:09, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

As the Flanders and Swann song goes:

Though we're thrown out of Malta,

Though Spain should take Gibraltar,

Why should we flinch or falter,

When England's got Rockall.

There is no most islands have an economic value because of their seabed potential it is extremely unlikely that such potential will not be wanted by some state or other. This is the or at least the predominant underlying reason for the disputes over ownership of islands such as the Falklands, Liancourt Rocks and the Pinnacle islands the last of which could become a hot war at any moment. [All most] all islands were claimed by imperial powers in the rush for empire in the late 19th and early 20th century, those claims have be continued by successor states. The neutral territories between states are often recognition that no agreement has yet been reached, there is nothing new in this see for example Debatable Lands that used to exist between England and Scotland (plus ça change, plus c'est la même) and more modern examples suh as Saudi–Iraqi neutral zone where the border is still not precisely agreed. Also the unfortunate boarder wars that Eritrea has been involved Eritrean–Ethiopian War, Hanish Islands conflict and the Djiboutian–Eritrean border conflict are example not of no claims to ownership but what can happens when two more more states claim the land. At the moment the closest the world gets to unclaimed land is territory under the [temporary] protection of the United Nations, but of course such areas are inhabited it is just that the members of the UN have not agreed to whom the territory belongs. -- PBS (talk) 14:13, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

PBS, I don't understand the sentence starting "There is no most islands have an economic value", particularly the first 5 words. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:23, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Surely Scotland's got Rockall? —Tamfang (talk) 08:54, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

When they leave the UK, I'd change that last word. KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (Chin Wag) 21:10, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Even Sealand tried to set up a government. StuRat (talk) 14:04, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Some DMZ's might qualify as "not owned by any country", in that everyone avoids them completely. StuRat (talk) 14:06, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

The question seems philosophically malformed. I mean, I hereby claim the planets and other appurtenances of Tau Ceti on behalf of Wikipedia. Voila! A claim. To prevent such claims being made you'd have to shut up everyone in the world; or more likely, pretend that their claims don't count, that only certain claims made in a certain way count. (Like is proposed for asteroid mining where some rich guy can afford to spray radio transmitters at asteroids. For some reason sending a signal from a certain kind of probe would make it Officially Theirs. For millennia afterward their heirs and descendants will probably be making and losing fortunes speculating in the ownership of these asteroids and their hypothetical resources, like those English lords without lands people were talking about here a few weeks ago, long after all hope of mining them had been given up and even the idea that the ancients had once gone into space had been dismissed by reputable authorities as a myth. (OTOH it's a stronger basis than Bitcoins) Wnt (talk) 15:21, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately, your claim to Tau Ceti would not be allowed under the Outer Space Treaty... -- AnonMoos (talk) 15:30, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

The treaty prohibits a state from laying claim to a celestial body. It's not clear that it prohibits an individual from making such a claim. 203.45.95.236 (talk) 15:16, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

The treaty states that all off-earth activities by "non-governmental entities" require the authorization and supervision of the appropriate national governments, which would seem to render ineffective and meaningless all private property claims without governmental support... AnonMoos (talk) 21:17, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

He needs to go and plant a flag on Tau Ceti and see if he's challenged. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:25, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Joining two political parties in the US

Is there any reason I can't be both a Democrat and a Republican and vote in both of their primaries? Isn't there an absolute right to freedom of association? 72.130.118.207 (talk) 08:02, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

When registering to vote, we choose which party to 'belong to" (dem, rep or ind)... though I assume this might vary according to state or county jurisdiction(?). not sure how that affects primary voting, i've heard of ppl voting in primaries outside of their registered affiliation. El duderino ^(abides) 09:07, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Some states have an open primary, which means you can vote in either primary, or both, regardless of your party affiliation. The concern is that some may use their vote to sabotage the opposite party, by voting for a nut job who they don't expect to be elected in the general election. This could result in both primaries selecting "unelectable" candidates, which would be a bad situation. StuRat (talk) 14:12, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Isn't this what happens anyway? Mingmingla (talk) 17:46, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Sometimes. And if the parties don't like it, they can work on getting the given state's laws changed. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:59, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

As our article says, Freedom of association generally implies that someone else can't stop you from associating with other people if they want to associate with you, such as being part of or forming a party of willing participants. It doesn't imply others have to associate with you if they don't want to or that a party has to accept you.

Actually that would frequently be considered the opposite of freedom of association when you're forcing people to associate with you when they don't want to, such as preventing a party from setting conditions on your acceptance as a member.

To put it a different way, if you are preventing from forming a party which accepts Republicans and Democrats, some may consider that a violation of freedom of association. If the Republican Party or Democrat Party chooses to expel/reject the membership of anyone who joins your party that's considered them exercising their right to freedom of association, not a violation of it.

Note as our article says, current intepretation of the constitution in the US generally implies there isn't an absolute right of freedom of association since there are restrictions such as considering race in making or enforcming private contracts.

Nil Einne (talk) 10:39, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Why do Americans need to declare their party preference when registering as voters - is there no secrecy of the ballot in America? If a South African government or civil service official were to demand to know my political affiliation they would in fact be committing a crime. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:15, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Declaring a party affiliation does not constitute violating secrecy of ballot. All it does is increase the chance of spam mailings and phone calls from politicians' staffs. Some primaries will also contain non-partisan candidates or issues, which will appear on both parties' primary ballots. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:37, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

I think we need to explain the difference between a Party election (primary) and a General election. First we have the Party elections - The voter officially joins a party (registers), which gives him/her the right to decide who the party's candidates will be. Republicans get to decide who will be the Republican candidates... Democrats get to decide who will be the Democratic candidates... etc. The voter shows up at the polling place, is asked which party he/she belongs to and votes in the appropriate primary... but who he/she votes for is secret.

Then there is the general election. Here, the voter is no longer voting as a Democrat or as a Republican... but as a Citizen. The voter is not asked which party he/she belongs to. The voter is free to vote for anyone, regardless of party affiliation. The ballot is secret. Blueboar (talk) 11:58, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Further, the system for primary elections varies between states. Not all require voters to declare a preference at registration. See Primary election#Types. --50.100.189.29 (talk) 12:06, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Corrected a few typos above.

Also I should clarify I'm not saying that it's impossible for a primary election system to be seen to violate freedom of association. I meant simply not in the simplistic case outlined by the OP. For example if a closed primary is the only legal option and not the choice of the party, then that may be seen as problematic. That said, although as with many outsiders I find much of primary system in the US including the administration weird, I don't think anywhere forbids non closed primaries. I suspect if anything the more likely problem is that a closed primary is required if you want govermental support for your primary which is a more complicated issue.

Of course the high level of governmental involvement in the primary system is one thing I find weird. Particularly since in some states there seems to be weird stuff like the that mentioned a few weeks ago, ability of the government workers to challenge someone's eligibility based on fairly loose criteria and how neutrality is enforced for such challenges. And there does seem to be a weird disconnect between the parties and the primaries. I recall that during the 2008 election cycle, some states held primaries in violation of what the parties themselves wanted and so the parties were reluctant to accept the primaries.

Nil Einne (talk) 14:15, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

72.130.118.207 -- In Texas, the only way you declare your party affiliation to the state is to show up at a primary election and vote. If you vote in the Republican party primary, then trying to vote in the Democratic primary would be double voting, and vice versa. Further, the poll worker may stamp your voter registration card (which are mailed out to registered voters every two years) to prevent a Republican primary voter from voting in the Democratic primary runoffs and vice versa (though with instant poll-worker access to computerized vote records, the card stamping now seems to be optional)... AnonMoos (talk) 13:08, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

The purpose of the primaries is to allow members of parties to nominate their candidates. No one forces you to vote in a primary. But if you do, it's only fair to declare your party affiliation. Every state's laws are different, as noted many times here. In the general election, you can be "both Democrat and Republican" by splitting your vote among members of different parties. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:01, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Don't assume party declarations are sincere, let alone binding declarations of association. Game theory applies to all games, including American electoral politics. See party raiding (which article helpfully disambiguates this common practice from the reportedly equally fun, though now politically unpopular, practice of the Great All American panty raid), citing a couple of recent examples of non-party members' strategic use of an opposed party's primary elections. Game on! Paulscrawl (talk) 18:57, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

If the political parties were concerned about this loophole, they would work on getting it closed. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:01, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

They have indeed. Political parties have long sued for preferential clarification of the ever-ambiguous and controversial public/private nature of political parties and the applicability of freedom of association, the OP's question.

A recent review of party efforts to retain control is Robert C. Wigton, The Parties in Court: American Political Parties Under the Constitution (Lexington Books, 2013 ISBN 978-0739189672 ). A freely accessible source of one such party effort to close one such party raiding loophole (cited in Wigton) is Gary L. Scott and Craig L. Car, Political Parties Before, the Bar: The Controversy Over Associational Rights (Seattle University Law Review, 1982). The blanket primary at issue in that Washington case has resurfaced in that state and others (California) as the nonpartisan blanket primary (in Louisiana, its origin, the "jungle primary.")

So yes, political parties are aware and care about these loopholes, as a long history of party litigation attests. Paulscrawl (talk) 20:49, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't want to switch back and forth, I want to vote in both parties' primaries. If it's illegal, why? If it's legal, how do I do it? I live in Hawaii. 72.130.118.207 (talk) 19:30, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Stu's link to open primary redirects to a section that seems to have been removed. I've never voted elsewhere, but in Massachusetts registered independents (that is, registered voters who declined to declare affiliation with either major party) may cast a ballot in a primary election for either party. The poll worker asks which primary you wish to vote in, hands you the appropriate ballot, and you may vote without declaring for the party you pick. Of course you can only pick one (i.e. vote once) per election, but nothing stops you from going back and forth from one party to the other in consecutive primaries. To 72.130, voting in both primaries would be illegal because voting more than one time in a single election is illegal (as it should be). Where the two parties have separate primary ballots, you don't get to have more than one ballot. In a non-partisan primary you can vote for whoever you like and the two top candidates will have a run-off election, but that's almost always a local rather than a state election.

Now, I think the danger of bad-faith voters trying to pick a nutty or unelectable candidate in their "enemy" party's primary is exaggerated - most voters have bigger fish to fry picking their own party's eventual candidate. Or, in cases where their own favorite is an incumbent who doesn't face a primary challenger, they may cast a ballot for him/her anyway or just not vote at all.^{all of which [citation needed]} In any case, it may either fail or backfire: I know people who openly wondered if they should vote for George W. Bush in the 2000 MA Republican primary, because he was "obviously unelectable," while a John McCain presidency would be a distinct but mildly unpleasant possibility. Now - "What we cannot speak about we must pass over in silence." ☯.Zen Swashbuckler.☠ 20:20, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

If you live in Hawaii, you must ask Hawaii legal history, the Hawaii legislature, and/or the Hawaii courts for "why", but administrative rules are plainly stated:

The Primary Election is a nomination process to choose candidates who will represent the political parties at the General Election. You, the voter, select the candidates of the political party of your choice. Your choice of party and candidates remains secret.

When voting in the primary, you must select only one party in the Select a Party section of the ballot card, then vote for the party you selected. If you do not select a party and you vote in more than one party ballot, your vote will not be counted.

http://hawaii.gov/elections/factsheets/fsvs522.pdf

More at http://hawaii.gov/elections

Paulscrawl (talk) 23:05, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

• NY has closed elections, meaning to vote in a primary the voter must be registered in some party before the election, and those registered independent will be turned away. Interesting, though, in the general election the same candidate may show up under more than one party line. For example, NY has a Conservative Party, which sometimes has the same candidate as the Republican Party (Giuliani was both the GOP and Conservative candidate) and a vote for him under either party counts as a vote for him. For example John Smith gets 35,000 GOP votes and Bob Jones gets 41,000 votes as a Democrat, but John Smith also gets 7,000 votes as the Conservative Party candidate, then John Smith wins the election.

NJ, however, while it has "closed" primaries, allows voters, unlike in NY, to declare for a different party at the polling place. Registered as an independent, I was able to vote in the Republican party ballot simply by signing a form of change of party affiliation right outside the booth. Neither does NJ have multiple line candidacy, so only one (and not the same) person can appear under any party line. μηδείς (talk) 17:29, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Why is Australia part of the "West"?

Australia is located near Asia. Why is it not called "The Far East", even though it's closer to the other Far Eastern countries than any "Western" country? Who invented the directional naming (Far East, Near East, the West, the Byzantine, etc.) anyway? Or maybe Australia is considered the "West", because it's located farther west than the United States of America? Does the Western world cover Central and South Americas too, since they were previously under Spain and Portugal's control? 65.24.105.132 (talk) 20:19, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

See western world. Australia was colonized by (and retains close ties to) Great Britain, and culturally speaking it is part of the West despite its geographical location. Colonized nations that retain fewer elements of their colonizers' culture are less/are less seen as part of the West. ☯.ZenSwashbuckler.☠ 20:25, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

I would be interested in hearing more of your thoughts on Australia's close ties with Britain. We share a queen with them (as does Canada), and the Union Jack is part of our flag. Many Australians want those factors to change. The most popular Test Cricket series are those between Australia and England, but that's a massive rivalry. What else is there? HiLo48 (talk) 03:12, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

There's language and capital. Given what I know about the long run structure of Australian capital, I'd put more emphasis on the capital than language. Australians seem to consume a higher volume of UK media than, for example USians, though this might be long run ABC contracts. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:35, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Some shared UK/Australia culture in no particular order: pubs, meat pies, rhyming slang, military tradition, fish and chips, sausages, Anglicanism, tea drinking, trade unionism and the Westminster system. A bit subjective, but we also seem to share a laconic sense of humour. Alansplodge (talk) 10:39, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

British and Canadian kangaroos look nothing like their cousins. But genuine British wallabies apparently exist. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:59, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

It is more of a geopolitical designation than a geographical one, (as inferred above).   —71.20.250.51 (talk) 20:29, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

As far as Central and South America (and the Caribbean), if the world is solely divided into East and West, then yes, they are "the West". However, "the Third World" is often used as a category, too, which would include many of the less developed nations there, as well as in Africa and Asia. StuRat (talk) 20:40, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

In the context of "The East" and "The West", much of the rest is also called the Non-Aligned Movement. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:34, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

The OP may be amused to learn that Australia is also sometimes described as being part of the North. HiLo48 (talk) 22:08, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Getting back to central America, the correct reference is the Western Hemisphere, which is different from the geopolitical "West". --Xuxl (talk) 13:10, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

• Ever tried getting there from California by going east? μηδείς (talk) 17:13, 29 July 2014 (UTC)