I used to think that there were only two states in the U.S. of North America, the province and the state. However, the reality is that we are a state-less country and it is becoming increasingly clear that the province is the only state. I think this is because it is a more coherent entity. A province is more of a part of the state itself and to include the province into the larger state will inevitably mean that everyone would be included in the province.
The province is a great example of what I mean by a coherent entity. With the province, we have a central government that acts as a single entity that is responsible for the governance of the state and everything that happens within its borders. The province, as a unit, is also responsible for the military and police. In other words, the province of Massachusetts is a province unto itself. It is not a state, and a state has a governor, legislature, and a supreme court.
In the same way that a state is a coherent entity, a province is also a coherent entity, and in this case their is one unified government which is responsible for the governance of the entire state.
Massachusetts is a state, but it’s also a province, with a governor, legislature, and supreme court. It is not a state, and a state has a governor, legislature, and supreme court.
Massachusetts is a state. A province is a self-contained government, which is responsible for the governance of a self-contained territory. A state is a single government responsible for the governance of a single territory.
Since Massachusetts is a province and has a governor, legislature, and supreme court, it is in charge of the entire state. States are units of governance in their own right, with a governor, legislature, and supreme court each responsible for the governance of a specific territory. There are no states in the world, and no territory.
Which is why the idea that a city is a territory is so counter-intuitive. When a state is established it is responsible for the governance of the entire state, but when a city is established, it is responsible for the governance of only a specific territory. This is because state and territory are mutually inclusive. They’re like “two halves of the same coin” in that they both have a single value, but it’s different types of value.
Territory is one of those things that is incredibly confusing. People who have lived in the same area all their lives often don’t know where it is. So if a person thinks that their old house is on their state’s property, they might just think the whole state is the property of the state. Which is why I don’t ever want to live in a house that is on the western edge of the state.
The other is the state vs province idea, its a very useful metaphor because it allows you to see both sides of a dispute: you are in fact in a dispute with your neighbors and it is in your best interests to let them handle it on their own. While its an issue when you live in a small town, it can be very useful when you are trying to negotiate your way to a larger city because you have a few neighbors that you can call in to help get you over the line.
As an example, I think the province vs state idea is very useful when you are trying to negotiate your way to a larger city. It is a very reasonable thing to do, so if you have this kind of a situation, you just need to let your neighbors (or your “real” neighbors) handle it on their own.