Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Stop the War! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: zonder who wrote (17699)	5/23/2003 12:20:15 PM
From: Brumar89	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 21614

Nothing in the quotation conflicted with what I said. Tribal sovereinity is very limited, even more so than state sovereignity. Neither tribal or state govts are independent or have relations with foreign coutnries etc. But they both have the powers to set their own excise tax and gambling laws. Tribal govts have less rights than states in this regard as Congress has required them to negotiate revenue sharing agreements with the states surrounding them - New Jersey doesn't have to share with New York or Pennsylvania. There are a number of "microstates" in Europe - Monaco (land area about one square mile, population about 30,000), Andorra, San Marino, Gibralter, Vatican City, Jersey - actually a bunch more especially on islands around Great Britain. All are defacto or dejure dependencies. Some have more trappings of independence than others. I think Monaco's independence is a legal fiction which benefits some wealthy and influential people. There is no chance Monaco would ever exercise any indendence France didn't approve of. France could if it wanted annul the treaties recognizing Monaco's independence tomorrow and that would be that. I don't understand what you are talking about, since we already agreed they don't pay tax and that they have the liberty to capitalise on gambling, something rather frowned upon for US citizens. You misunderstand. Most Indians don't live on tribal territory and pay all the taxes everybody else does. The only tax difference is that state taxes - property, excise - can't be imposed on tribal territory. Federal taxes are. Re. gambling, they as individuals have no rights anyone else doesnt. But tribal govts do have some of the same rights states do to allow it or not - subject to revenue sharing compacts previously mentioned. BTW most states allow some kind of gambling now. Texas, where I live, has a state run lottery as well as horse and dog tracks where gambling takes place. In any case, if we recall why this conversation started in the first place, even if one is to assume that Indians have "the same rights as everybody else" in the US, they are far better than the Palestinians living under Israel's rule, I guess you would agree. Of course. In general, I pity anyone who doesn't live in the US. Palestinians could have a lot more freedom now if they hadn't blown the negotiations during the last year of the Clinton administration. BTW, one of the first things the PA did when it got a vestige of autonomy was build a casino in Jericho (now closed due to Palestinian violence). Bet you wouldn't argue the Oasis casino was an example of Palestinians having extra rights vis a vis Israelis.