Talk:Corporative federalism

message: : ... 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  huh? 

message: : 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  The sentence is not there to create unclarity, it's there to preserve unclarity. —Tamfang (talk) 21:48, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  desperately seeking a verb 

message: 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.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:58, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified