This diatribe is regarding the media's handling of one of many recent whistleblower stories, and an atypical one at that. After beginning with a historical expiation of the etymology of the term, the author goes on to discard other current whistleblower stories, the vast majority of which the media has covered in a starkly different manner, and commits the sin they are condemning, that of sesationalizing the Snowden case.
Sure, a US citizen could, but it would just be one citizen's point of view, and a citizen is not the same as his or her government, which is why a U.S. citizen can be critical of their government without being schizophrenic. We're each allowed our own point of view (and may be punished or rewarded commensurately). Since our laws are not centrally planned and individual rights are dearly cherished (though not universally respected), well, you get this sort of "cognitive dissonance " effect.
International Law is concent based, meaning, it's more a guideline than a law. Sovereignty, at the state level, still reigns supreme. Until states voluntarily bind themselves this will be the case. Here in the U.S. of A. most folks misunderstand the term "state" to mean a political unit that is subservient to the federal level of government. This is only true for certain areas of law, and it is only true because the states bound themselves by voluntarily ratifying the constitution (well, enough of them ratified it and a few went along for the ride). Most folks here are unaware that each state is, politically speaking, still as sovereign as Germany or China. Arkansas = Australia. New York = Bolivia. Texas = France (except, Texas is bigger than France). So, no, between two states, unless there is a binding, not concent based, agreement between the parties, and even then it's fairly common to break these agreements and settle the outcome in court, well states can do pretty much whatever they want. And they do.
Edit: On the subtle points being missed or misunderstood by the replies so far, maybe do some research before sounding off. I've a B.S. in Political Science and am married to a person currently working on their dissertation for their Political Theory Ph.D. whose advisor is ranked above Foucault for the most influential political theorists, and I was able to double check my claims as correct simply by reading some Wikipedia.
Vacri already said enough about import duties. No US state can or does impose duties.
US citizenship (as defined by the federal level) is a necessary condition for Texan citizenship. Texas can't grant any political rights to "Texan citizens" who are not US citizens.
Federal structure: Take a look at Germany or any other federal nation. Germany consists of 16 states that joined a union (that is known as Germany) and voluntarily ratified the constitution (well, enough of them ratified it and a one went along for the ride). The states are individual entities that have their own laws, police, and so on. Starting to see the similarities? Politically speaking, no US state is as sovereign as Germany. Not in theory and certainly not in practice. However, the single German states have a certain level of sovereignty just like US states have a certain level of sovereignty. It's not an absolute but a spectrum.
"Most folks here" are unaware of what you posted not because they don't know but because it's simply not true. Maybe you should do some research outside Wikipedia. Well, you can even start there: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federated_state I know that many people (including political scholars) in the US hold the view that the states are individual entities similar to entire nation states. Note that this view is shared by almost nobody outside the US.
Oh, and please don't respond to comments by editing your original post by the way. I could also spread out the university degrees of me and my conversation partners here but that does not change anything about facts. It's just a bad argument.
Also, we are all wrong on certain points given certain assumptions. For instance, given the assumption that a state is defined as a political entity with absolute sovereignty, the 50 U.S. States could not be termed states. I'm very well aware of that and probably should not have been authoring a response a bottle of Zinfandel into the awesome "Fortitude" series, from Amazon.
I was fortunate to be able to take a class, "The State and Sovereignty", with Richard Ashley, who more or less wrote the book (or paper) on post-modern or post-structural International Relations [1]. From another site: "Ashley is concerned with how concepts like the state, sovereignty, and war are rarely questioned as problematic in international politics (Ashley 1989: 302). If the state is the central unit of analysis in IR and yet it is rarely thoroughly examined, how accurate are the assumptions that realism and liberalism rest on?" [2]. My thesis for this class was on this exact topic. Titled "Sovereignty: A Non-Sequitur", I used a lot of words to reference a lot of other people who used even more word to call bs on the very concept of state sovereignty.
But, hey, that's what you get when you approach a complex topic in a blunt fashion. But let's not stop now, let's go to Wikipedia:
State (polity) := "A state is an organized political community living under a single system of government. Speakers of American English often use state and government as synonyms, with both words referring to an organized political group that exercises authority over a particular territory. States may or may not be sovereign. For instance, federated states that are members of a federal union have only partial sovereignty, but are, nonetheless, states." [3]
Federation := "A federation (from Latin: foedus, gen.: foederis, "covenant"), also known as a federal state, is a political entity characterized by a union of partially self-governing states or regions under a central (federal) government. " [4]
"The component states are in some sense sovereign, insofar as certain powers are reserved to them that may not be exercised by the central government. However, a federation is more than a mere loose alliance of independent states. The component states of a federation usually possess no powers in relation to foreign policy, and so they enjoy no independent status under international law. However, German Länder do have this power, which is beginning to be exercised on a European level." [4]
U.S. State := "A state of the United States of America is one of the 50 constituent political entities that shares its sovereignty with the United States federal government. Due to the shared sovereignty between each state and the federal government, Americans are citizens of both the federal republic and of the state in which they reside.[3] State citizenship and residency are flexible and no government approval is required to move between states, except for persons covered by certain types of court orders (e.g., paroled convicts and children of divorced spouses who are sharing custody)." [5]
German Länder (States of Germany) := "Though international relations including international treaties are primarily the responsibility of the federal level, the constituent states have certain limited powers in this area: in matters that affect them directly, the states defend their interests at the federal level through the Bundesrat (literally Federal Council, the upper house of the German Federal Parliament) and in areas where they have legislative authority they have limited powers to conclude international treaties 'with the consent of the federal government'." [6]
So, we have, at least as far as Wikipedia is concerned but surely others will say the issue is more complicated [0], that: federated states that are members of a federal union are indeed states, there is such a thing as state citizenship, and that states belonging to a Federation do enjoy independent status under international law.
Now, in practice, how do U.S. States feel about Trade agreements. Let me google that for you:
Just because it has 'California' in the name 'California Almonds' doesn't mean that California has inked any trade treaties, any more than the Champagne region of France is the entity that enforces it's branding issues on sparkling white wine.
Similarly, the page you've linked to there is other countries' import duties on the product - the table column's title is even "Import to Country".
Even if the page said what you think it does - I'm from Australia, which is on the list. I'm really interested to see if you can show me the trade agreement California seems to have individually inked with my nation. I don't think it exists, but you apparently do - please reference the law.
That's not true. Under section 51(xxix) of the Australian Consitution, only the Federal government can make international treaties. Individual Australian states cannot.
Ah, I see. So China, just like a US state, has to honour the public acts and judicial proceedings of neighbouring states via a 'full faith and credit clause'?
the "full faith and credit clause", i.e. article iv, sec. 1 of the u.s. constitution, was written after the constitutions of the states that would eventually sign onto the constitution (clearly), and a long (long) time after the term "state" was being used (c.1300 [1]).
Given that a cursory reading of the wikipedia page on this clause states that"At present, it is widely agreed that this Clause of the Constitution has little impact on a court's choice of law decision," I'm at a loss as to how I'm to interpret your one line response as relates to your argument that U.S. states are not as sovereign as a state such as Germany or China.
idk, maybe you were just bored and threw this out into the universe, to see if it would stick, or something.
You have me genuinely puzzled at how you somehow claim that because the term 'state' in this context is 800 years old, it means that law made later than this is somehow weak. I genuinely don't get this age-of-etymology argument you're using.
In any case, age of a law is not an automatic trump card. There are multiple sites on the web listing silly laws from the 19th century that never get enforced, for example.
> to see if it would stick, or something.
What, you mean like saying that the individual US states are as sovereign as China?
Also, "I've got a BS and my partner has a PhD in topic X, and I can verify my point by my reading of Wikipedia"? Seriously? Well, my reading of Wikipedia says that you're completely wrong! I'm also King of Namibia and my bestie is the Pope. Just take my word for it.
Not even going to read this. The "end of politics". No such thing. As long as there are people we will be complaining about politics, but there will never be people without politics. It is what we do. Facism, technocracy, theocracy, monarcy, democracy, anarchy, it's all politics. Just because the process is not exhibited in a format that is recognizable by Western ideals or easily packaged and showcased on Fox News or some of us get lazy and acquiesce or some are forcibly disenfranchised does not mean we've seen the end of politics.
I just moved from Baltimore to Austin. I've also live in Corpus Christi, Phoenix, and New York City each for at least 5+ years. I already miss Baltimore. I new nothing about it, besides being familiar with the stereotypes, before moving there (spouse got into Hopkins, so Baltimore was part of the package deal), and I fell in love with it. I was sad to move away. Maryland in general was beautiful. But Baltimore, beyond the affordable cost of living, being on the water, and the bonus of living near D.C. and NYC, well, Baltimore is a rad, raucous, beautiful, sad, historic, electric, harsh, real fucking American city. I was there, and participated in, the uprising (as well as the months of peaceful protests leading up to that time that received zero national press), and have never experienced such a beautiful and powerful response to such a horrible challenge in any of the other cities I have lived. Baltimore, I fucking love/miss you.
What is it about programming as a profession that attracts people who believe they are all things? When becoming a civil engineer do you take a large number of business courses? When becoming an electrical engineer do you take a large number of business courses? When becoming a doctor do you take a large number of business courses? When becoming an astrophysicist do you take a large number of business courses?
Why are you not suggesting that ethics should be a larger portion of the programmer's training and skill set. Perhaps while building the infrastructure for the next century we should all think long and hard about the ethical implications of what we're building rather than just racing to get the next round of funding or a positive report by some Wall Street analyst on the other side of the country.
Most code bases look as though they've been built by business analysts rather than professional software engineers. The number of security exploits is a testament to this in practice. What we have here is basically a repeat of Wall Street's bond market in the 80's, just in a different industry. Because of the market fundamentals most any idiot was making a killing. Most of these bond traders actually were not terribly bright, but they were making money hand over fist, and so, they thought they were geniuses. In the end it really didn't work out well for anyone. For a good overview of what I'm referring to you can read "Liar's Poker."
Eventually these idiots were replaced with professionals, and to work at any of these shops one must now first prove, through both schooling and certification, that one has a solid grasp of a large knowledge base. If you want to become a portfolio manager, and you already graduated from Columbia with a degree in finance, that's great but you still need to go get your CFA. Google CFA and then compare that to your average programming interview. Just the Level 1 exam has over 3,000 pages of material. There are 3 levels. You basically don't have a social life for 18 months. And most of the time this is something one does while holding down a full time job that already assumes they own your free time. Lawyer's bar exams and the Board Certification process are equally grueling.
I'd be very happy with more of an emphasis on classical knowledge. A strong foundation based on a knowledge base of classical knowledge is the foundation of any professional engineering society. Patronizing someone with a firm grasp on this knowledge by saying that they are "great as code monkeys" betrays an enormously immature approach to one's profession.
Agreed and same. It's my opinoin that this issue is underdiscussed and that the mess that is often delivered is rationalized by "methodology" and "it's not our fault our requirements force us to deliver this".
But whatever the reason or rational, every time a story breaks about another security exploit or privacy exploit I read that as a condemnation on our profession.
In other professions, part of the certification process is gaining a basic level of understanding of the ethics one is judged against when associating one's work with that of the larger trades group, guild, or association. Often it is well understood that, to some extent, the topic is simply being paid lip service. But,it is also understood that those ethics draw a bright line which those the association serves will not tolerate when openly crossed. Take for instance investment professionals. Everyone knows insider trading happens and it's not uncommon to put profit before fiduciary duty, but when those lines are openly or egregiously crossed it is not tolerated under threat that the understanding between the client and advisor that minor infractions will be tolerated will no longer be honored.
The software engineering profession lacks this basic ethical covenant with its customer. Just look at the utter lack of product warranties. Sure there are SLAs, but there are virtually no warranties. And it shows.
As software begins to function more and more as the linchpin of our society, this issue will morph from technical debt to an Achilles heel. We complain about anachronistic laws. What about anachronistic code? We complain about absurd laws. What about absurd code? It's just as dangerous.
Compare the U.S. Constitution (7,200 words) to the E.U. Constitution (76,000 words). Many comments are focusing on the mechanics and details. That approach leads down the road to 76,000 words. The goal is a macro issue, not a micro issue. Committing to a basic income is something that should be done for the same reasons we go to war or go to the moon. Not because it is easy or profitable but because it is what we want to do and believe we have a moral imperative to do. A basic income does not require that everyone become industrious. Nor does it guarantee national economic superiority. It is simply, and profoundly, a commitment to ensuring that every individual shares in the economic wealth generated by our society.
