> assuming that all governments are equally legitimate
Not really directed at you but I wanted to explore this more in general:
When a corporation chooses to submit articles of incorporation to any given jurisdiction, notions of "equally legitimate" wrt any particular jurisdiction's leverage over them seems meaningless to me if such corporate operating in any given jurisdiction is not willing to risk being able to operate effectively in such jurisdiction (sure, any given corporation may have different levels of exposure to different jurisdictions, but that to me seems more a risk/reward thing and not really jurisdictional legitimacy thing, even though people may take it as a signal that holding more assets/operational capacity in a particular jurisdiction automatically gives that jurisdiction more legitimacy over another where they hold less or none at all, but that brings up another question: is a jurisdiction any less legitimate if one holds no exposure to it but others orgs do?).
If an organization is able to continue to operate within any given (claimed) jurisdiction without putting its assets/operational capacity at significant risk in such jurisdictions from any punitive actions from non compliance, then the legitimacy of any given jurisdiction is zero if we are tying exposure to such jurisdiction to its legitimacy (thus all jurisdictions would be equally legitimate with a weight of zero, which perhaps would be a better assumption than all with a weight of 1 as far as such orgs are concerned [not that all orgs can operate as such]).
Not really directed at you but I wanted to explore this more in general:
When a corporation chooses to submit articles of incorporation to any given jurisdiction, notions of "equally legitimate" wrt any particular jurisdiction's leverage over them seems meaningless to me if such corporate operating in any given jurisdiction is not willing to risk being able to operate effectively in such jurisdiction (sure, any given corporation may have different levels of exposure to different jurisdictions, but that to me seems more a risk/reward thing and not really jurisdictional legitimacy thing, even though people may take it as a signal that holding more assets/operational capacity in a particular jurisdiction automatically gives that jurisdiction more legitimacy over another where they hold less or none at all, but that brings up another question: is a jurisdiction any less legitimate if one holds no exposure to it but others orgs do?).
If an organization is able to continue to operate within any given (claimed) jurisdiction without putting its assets/operational capacity at significant risk in such jurisdictions from any punitive actions from non compliance, then the legitimacy of any given jurisdiction is zero if we are tying exposure to such jurisdiction to its legitimacy (thus all jurisdictions would be equally legitimate with a weight of zero, which perhaps would be a better assumption than all with a weight of 1 as far as such orgs are concerned [not that all orgs can operate as such]).