Willravel

Puerto Rico belongs to the US but is not part of the US. Same with Samoa, Guam, the Marianas and the Virgin Islands. While they each have their own government, that government answers to the US government despite the fact that they have no representatives in the US government, such as Senators and Congressmen.

Why is it that countries are in this odd middle ground between statehood and independence? Do you believe it's fair? I'm sure some of these people are fine with their position, some wish for independence and some wish for statehood, but aside from that, is this something you personally agree with? If so, why? If not, why not?

Personally, I'm having trouble finding my footing on the issue. Overall it seems that the citizens of these places are happy, but I've found happiness isn't necessarily a good meter by which to measure what I find right and wrong. If I were in one of these places, I wonder if I'd be clamoring for change. If California was one such unincorporated territory, where I lived under the authority of the US government but found no representation in it, I would probably be at least a little concerned. Things might be fine, the rulers tending to their ruling responsibly, taxation at a reasonable level, and local and state government could be functioning well enough that there aren't any major problems, but an empire regardless of how functional is still an empire. I'd much prefer a federation or republic to an empire regardless of the troubles that come from allowing the people to rule.