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.

Strategies & Market Trends : 2026 TeoTwawKi ... 2032 Darkest Interregnum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Haim R. Branisteanu who wrote (109280)	12/26/2014 3:02:56 PM
From: Maurice Winn	Respond to of 217907

Haha, good point. Perhaps Alaska was sold to USA in fee simple, with sovereignty not changing, just as it doesn't change if a government, say the USA, bought a patch of land in New Zealand, such as my house and land. They wouldn't be able to declare sovereignty over my bit of land and set up their own laws there, other than in ambassadorial processes which are subject to the country in which the embassy resides. Which of course would bring into question the sovereignty of Russia in the first place, as the local yokels, like the Maoris in New Zealand, had prior rights to the land which were not extinguished by the Treaty of Waitangi. Maori land rights were specifically left intact over their tribal fiefdoms, with the right to sell land to the Crown, aka government, but actually the British sovereign, being Queen Victoria at the time. As you write, the terms of ownership would need scrutiny. I hope the USA wouldn't just annex Alaska as Russia has annexed Crimea. Naughty naughty. Mqurice