Humanities desk
< August 25	<< Jul \| August \| Sep >>	August 27 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

August 26[edit]

Stock market index futures[edit]

The trading of stock market index futures seems to extremely similar to zero-sum bucket shop trading. I've noticed several differences between index futures and other derivatives:

-Because of the cash settlement, there is really no underlying asset to exchange. As I understand it, the buyer of the contract does not receive any stocks that make up the index, even in a ETF form. With other futures contract, particular commodities, there seems to be a possibility of actually receiving an asset.

-With calls and puts, you get the right to actually buy or sell the security, giving the option value. I don't see that here.

-Other types of derivatives, like credit default swaps, can act as insurance which can benefit both the buyer and seller. Again, I don't see that here.

This product just seems to me to be naked betting, even using it a hedge, without any other real financial benefit.

Am I wrong?

67.6.181.118 (talk) 03:39, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Any stock market investment can be compared to betting, due to the element of risk necessarily involved. Stock market index futures have legitimate investment, trading, and hedging purposes, which are briefly discussed in our article. They differ from bucket shop trading in that they are not susceptible to the abuses in which bucket shops engaged, primarily because the future derives from a broad-based index rather than particular stocks that may be subject to manipulation. John M Baker (talk) 14:57, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My point was there is no physical settlement of any actual asset, unlike other forms of stock and option investing, so it just seems very similar to a bucket shop. Also, I did look at the article. 67.6.181.118 (talk) 02:21, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The rule of the thread of the channel and organized incorporated territories[edit]

I have these two questions:

Should the boundary between Washington, DC and Virginia be added to the list of exceptions to the rule of the thread of the channel?
Is Washington, DC an organized incorporated territory of the United States? The linked article says it's not, but what is the difference? It is (1) a part of the U.S.A. and (2) not a part of any of the states and (3) subject to a government established by an act of Congress. Those seem to be the essential characteristics of an organized incorporated territory. Michael Hardy (talk) 06:53, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On your second question, have you read Organized incorporated territories of the United States#District of Columbia? Rojomoke (talk) 11:53, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On question 1) Do you have a source? The other parts of that list have no sources (I do know that all three are true, but my knowing them true is not sufficient). I'm fairly certain you are correct; so if you can dig up a good source to confirm it, and then site that source, you can add it. While your at it, if you can find sources for the other claims, that'd be good too! --Jayron 32 14:03, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like there is an exception not just for D.C. but for the boundary between Virginia and Maryland, which is the low-water mark on the Virginia side, see Virginia v. Maryland, 540 U.S. 56 (2003). John M Baker (talk) 15:28, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

At the risk of looking ridiculous: my source for my first question is Google Maps. For the boundary between Vermont and New Hampshire, the source that comes most immediately to mind is a ruling of the United States Supreme Court in 1933, although I've seen a few things from the 18th century about that. Vermont wanted the boundary to be the thread of the channel, but New Hampshire won, and the boundary remains the west bank. I think that may go back to King Charles II, who was beheaded. He made a grant to the Duke of York, and included all of what is now the state of Vermont within the province of New York.

Could someone correct the following if it is wrong: a result of the Seven Years War, whose North American theater is sometimes called the French and Indian War, was that Canada, which had been a French colony, became a British colony, and in 1763 the British parliament made the north bank of the Ohio the southern boundary of Canada. That was superseded by the treaty of 1783, establishing peace between the United States and the United Kingdom, but the north bank of the Ohio remained the southern boundary of the Northwest Territory, which ultimately became five states and part of a sixth state, and three of those five states extend southward to the north bank (not the thread of the channel) of the Ohio.

I have no idea how the boundary between Delaware and New Jersey became the west bank of the riveer. Michael Hardy (talk) 05:59, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Delaware/New Jersey border with regard to the Delaware River is explained at Twelve-Mile Circle. Delaware has an interesting boundary story, Wikipedia has individual articles on each part of the Boundary, including the north-south portion of the Mason-Dixon line, the Transpeninsular Line, and The Wedge (border). --Jayron 32 13:25, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As to the Ohio: The area north of the Ohio River was claimed by Virginia, which called it Illinois County, Virginia. The Virginia legislature in 1783 voted to cede this region to the federal government, and the cession was effected in 1784. The Virginia cession was of land "situate, lying and being to the northwest of the river Ohio." This has long been recognized as meaning that the southern boundary of the Northwest Territory, and later of the states to the north of the Ohio, is the low-water mark of the Ohio on the northern side. The current boundary is governed by the Supreme Court's 1980 decision in Ohio v. Kentucky, which ruled that the boundary between Ohio and Kentucky is the low-water mark on the northerly side of the Ohio River as it existed in the year 1792, and not as it exists today. John M Baker (talk) 15:26, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See also Handly's Lessee v. Anthony (functionally "Indiana v. Kentucky"), another Ohio River border case. This is greatly at variance with Ohio v. Kentucky and therefore not hugely relevant today, since Handly's Lessee predated Ohio by 160 years, although it's still relevant as precedent for using the low-water mark of a river, rather than a high-water mark or an only-during-floods mark. Nyttend (talk) 18:45, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I presume the "thread of the channel" is the middle of the waterway. I would guess the border between Mexico and the United States runs down the middle of the Rio Grande just as the border between Portugal and Spain is the middle of the River Guadiana and the demarcation between the London boroughs (and the City of London) is the middle of the River Thames.

At one point Canada and the United States are, I believe, separated by a very narrow channel. This is not clear from the maps I have but if I remember aright Detroit, Michigan is very close to Toronto, Ontario. Again I would imagine that the midpoint of the channel is the border. 80.43.176.34 (talk) 11:16, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What is the point of an established church?[edit]

What is the purpose of an established church? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.254.136.159 (talk) 18:40, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you mean state religions, it depends on the religion and which sect thereof. For Christianity and Islam, the usual justification is usually along the lines that the government ultimately derives its authority from God, and that the state religion is the spiritual parallel to the state government (or that the state government is the political parallel to the state religion). Just as the government issues laws to protect its citizens' social and physical interests, the state religion issues doctrines to protect its citizens' spiritual interests.

Of course, there are some who argue that the "state" portion invalidates the "religion" portion, as the religion becomes reduced to "be a good citizen," even when the religion originally rejects citizenship. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:04, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Got it. So, what about the concept of the mandate of heaven in imperial Chinese society, where natural disasters and poverty and rebellions are signs of the end of one dynasty and beginning of the next? Does that count as a state religion? Is the state religion established by the government or just something that the majority of the population holds? 140.254.136.159 (talk) 19:14, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Going back to the purpose of an established church, a historical answer to the question is that from ancient times until fairly recently in the West and the Middle East, religious institutions were crucial to the control of the population by the state. Parish churches were in effect local offices of the state, performing marriages and funerals. They were also the main sources of education and entertainment, and therefore indoctrination, and generally central to community life. In this context, the state wanted to control the religious affiliations of its subjects partly to ensure their loyalty and partly to prevent opposition. Priests would have had an interest in helping the state to snuff out any opposition to their monopoly on religious practice. The situation was similar in most Islamic states.

As for your second question, the Mandate of Heaven was not the same thing as an established church. It was an idea supported by Chinese philosophy. Through most of its history, China did not have a sole state religion, though Confucianism was the preferred religion/philosophy of the state during many periods. Still, other traditions, such as Taoism and Buddhism were usually tolerated, and religious institutions did have the same role as arms of the state in premodern China that they did in the premodern West. Marco polo (talk) 19:39, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Could this be why premodern China's Jews were assimilated into the greater society (taking imperial examinations that emphasized Chinese literature and history) while European Jews were either persecuted or converted or discriminated against? Did state churches perform weddings and funerals for Jewish families? How did Jews live with a Christian government? 140.254.136.159 (talk) 20:10, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In the West, they were isolated into ghettos, where they managed most of their affairs by themselves. State churches would have refused to perform any religious rite but conversion for the Jews. Interaction between Jews and nominally Christian governments otherwise usually did not end well for the Jews (see Alhambra Decree, Edict of Expulsion). Some more pragmatic rulers generally held that the Jews should be left alone so long as they paid their taxes. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:17, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's not entirely the whole truth; see Resettlement of the Jews in England which describes how in the 17th century, the government spent considerable sums of money attempting to lure Jewish traders to London, at a time when the supporters of the established Church of England had recently caused the expulsion the Catholic James II. Although there were Jewish communities, there were no ghettos in London. The synogogue that they founded is still up and running; see Bevis Marks Synagogue. Alansplodge (talk) 18:40, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is the state religion established by the government or just something that the majority of the population holds? The former. A majority religion isn't necessarily the state religion; in some cases, the government has actively rejected and sometimes even suppressed the majority religion, e.g. the actively atheistic policies of Soviet Russia and the earliest French Republic sought to get rid of the majority Orthodox and Catholic churches, respectively. Nyttend (talk) 18:40, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

However, the original question was "What is the purpose of an established church?", rather than what it was centuries ago. The answer seems to be, in the case of England, that it symbolises for the state the relationship between the Head of State and Christianity, which may serve as a national moral compass. For the Church of England, the benefits are some legal privileges and representation in the House of Lords. For those with time on their hands, the issues are argued from a number of perspectives in CHURCH AND STATE: Some Reflections on Church Establishment in England. According to that, most other European countries have secularised their constitutions over the preceding decades, with perhaps only Denmark, Norway and Greece having anything similar to England's arrangements. (p. 72) Anglicanism in Ireland and Wales has been disestablished for some time, and the Presbyterian Church of Scotland has a much looser degree of establishment. It is notable that, according to the linked document, whatever the historical iniquities of establishment, non-established churches in England seem to see some virtue in the current arrangement, whereas it is vigorously opposed by the British Humanist Association and the National Secular Society. Alansplodge (talk) 19:38, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

From the church's point of view the point is more power, e.g. bishops in the House of Lords and so forth. Thus in the current debate on the relaxation of Sunday trading laws the Church is not just another pressure group - it can vote on whether the legislation is to be implemented or not (I believe the bishops have the same voting rights as temporal peers). 80.43.176.34 (talk) 11:25, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Although since the Parliament Act 1911, the House of Lords cannot defeat bills from the House of Commons, they can only send them back for a second look. The bishop's 26 seats in the Lords do not confer power as such, but do provide a platform since controversial debates are reported in the media; it also allows the bishops to question ministers directly, whereas enquiries from non-Parliamentarians might otherwise be fobbed-off onto public relations people. The downside of establishment for the CofE is that it is somewhat hamstrung by the remnants of Parliamentary control of its self governance; new bishops, for example, are appointed by the Prime Minister, although this is generally presented as a Hobson's choice and the PM has little real say. Alansplodge (talk) 16:21, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Steeple. μηδείς (talk) 20:03, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- ¿Cómo? Alansplodge (talk) 12:25, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ver historico, Medeis, 20:03 horas ontem. 92.24.106.233 (talk) 16:07, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]