On Sat, Jul 5, 2008 at 12:03 AM, R.A. Hettinga <rah@...> wrote:

> To take this further out in the weeds, one wonders who the Princes of
> Lichtenstein, Monoco, etc., are loyal subjects of, these days...

An excellent question RAH!

I guess (refer:
http://www.btinternet.com/~allan_raymond/Liechtenstein_Royal_Family.htm)
the principality, having been subject to the Holy Roman Empire, being
a minor, independent (ie. self-governing) principality, the title of
prince is a formality amongst the all-interrelated royals of Europe
and not to be promoted beyond whatever the (rather formal and
tradition-bound) 'relatives' allow.

Maybe one would need to trace the family tree of the current Prince to
the closest "king" to find someone to whom they might feel
subordinate, although this does not necessarily impinge on the daily
governance of the state.

The reality, I expect is that the ruler, thinking again of Prince
Leonard (and applying generally), is subject to *expediency*. It is
not expedient to undermine Australian border security (in people or in
quarantine control), or to become what "Australia" might consider a
money laundering or smuggling (ie. free trade) zone, or to become a
tax haven or to otherwise export goods or services of which the
surrounding government of Australia disapproves.

How to govern one's state? That question may be restated as "How to be
a good neighbour?" Self-determination where the effects are
self-contained in one's state. A "market-taker" in matters of
international concern. Indeed, that seems to be the way of
standardisation of laws and policies in mainstream states everywhere!

PS: "Market taker" being used like how in economics, a producer has no
power to set prices, but has to accept whichever price the market
itself sets.