Talk:Corporative federalism

[Untitled]

Are there references to this type of governance in the Austro-Hungarian states? Wekins

I'd be interested in knowing any exact reference in their governmental law also. Right now, besides repetitions of this very article, google finds only brief mentionings of this concept in association to the Austro-Hungarian governance, such as here. Nagelfar 19:27, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In the event that the above link ever goes down, here is the content of that page in regard to the question:

"The personality principle consists in giving to each citizen certain services in his/her language independently from the place in which he/she lives. The territoriality principle consists, instead, in using in a certain territory one or more languages for all the citizens living there whatever languages they use."

"The most interesting example of the personality principle, is the "corporative federalism" adopted by the Austro-Hungarian Empire: this policy consisted in dividing the country not only in administrative territorial units, but also in ethnic units on a voluntary basis, in which each citizen could register wherever he or she was living."

It gives a copywrite link "(c) OneEurope Magazine III/94" to a site which is already down. Nagelfar 22:35, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

huh?

... a system of federalism not based on the common federalist idea of relative land area or nearest spheres of influence for governance, but on fiduciary jurisdiction to corporate personhood, where groups who are considered incorporated members of their own prerogative structure by willed agreement can delegate their individual effective legislature within the overall government.

Was this translated from German or something? (I don't think jurisdiction to personhood is good English.) Does it mean that citizens can join the group of their choice, and these groups are the basis of legislative representation? Or something else? Is groups synonymous with structure, and prerogative with willed agreement?

I would also suggest that "relative land area" be moved to a separate paragraph about contrasting systems. (It's certainly not the first or second thing that comes to my mind when I think of federalism.) —Tamfang (talk) 21:46, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say most functional federal governments are so by viritue of their division into sub-territory, that are in-fact simply segments of actual geographic land as border jurisdiction. Readily contrasting jurisdiction as some more abstract right attached, free-floatingly, to an identity or persona ("personhood", is more from the terminology 'corporate personhood' as a legal idea itself.) whether as an individual human or conglomerate entity (even if not for profit / noncapitalist). 184.76.53.217 (talk) 12:25, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

desperately seeking a verb

Theories adding philosophic backing to its own conceptualizations from such ideas as diplomatic recognition and the sovereign state's right to exist as it were extending beyond territorial nation-state in an international structure, to an intranational structure of the voluntary association of those with similar social world views being codified legal frameworks to themselves, within their own sphere of interaction, under a federal government of a particular nation state.

This sentence has no verb, and the referent of "its" (in the first line) is not obvious. —Tamfang (talk) 01:42, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do not concur that such a line obfuscates the issue: the subject at hand in the previous sentence that you left out is the subject of the article right so referenced "corporative federalism" its-very-self. 'It's = corporative federalism,' as in theories adding to corporative federalism's (as a world view) general & natural conceptualization (native to its political philosophy underpinning justifying its viability in contrast to any other political systematization as either an entity or adherence / cause to believe in) ... etc. Nagelfar (talk) 07:23, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The sentence is not there to create unclarity, it's there to preserve unclarity. —Tamfang (talk) 21:48, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Corporative federalism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070324072800/http://www.karl.aegee.org/oem/articles/linguist.htm to http://www.karl.aegee.org/oem/articles/linguist.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:58, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]