Federalist No. 11, by Alexander Hamilton (The Utility of the Union in Respect to Commercial Relations and a Navy)

“There are other points of view in which this subject might be placed, of a striking and animating kind. But they would lead us too far into the regions of futurity, and would involve topics not proper for a newspaper discussion. I shall briefly observe, that our situation invites and our interests prompt us to aim at an ascendant in the system of American affairs. The world may politically, as well as geographically, be divided into four parts, each having a distinct set of interests. Unhappily for the other three, Europe, by her arms and by her negotiations, by force and by fraud, has, in different degrees, extended her dominion over them all. Africa, Asia, and America, have successively felt her domination. The superiority she has long maintained has tempted her to plume herself as the Mistress of the World, and to consider the rest of mankind as created for her benefit. Men admired as profound philosophers have, in direct terms, attributed to her inhabitants a physical superiority, and have gravely asserted that all animals, and with them the human species, degenerate in America; that even dogs cease to bark after having breathed awhile in our atmosphere. Facts have too long supported these arrogant pretensions of the Europeans. It belongs to us to vindicate the honor of the human race, and to teach that assuming brother, moderation. Union will enable us to do it. Disunion will will add another victim to his triumphs. Let Americans disdain to be the instruments of European greatness! Let the thirteen States, bound together in a strict and indissoluble Union, concur in erecting one great American system, superior to the control of all transatlantic force or influence, and able to dictate the terms of the connection between the old and the new world!”.

 “Un nuevo orden internacional político y económico para el siglo XXI”, por José Mª López

Federalist No. 9, by Alexander Hamilton (The Union as a Safeguard Against Domestic Faction and Insurrection)

“But it is not to be denied that the portraits they have sketched of republican government were too just copies of the originals from which they were taken. If it had been found impracticable to have devised models of a more perfect structure, the enlightened friends to liberty would have been obliged to abandon the cause of that species of government as indefensible. The science of politics, however, like most other sciences, has received great improvement. The efficacy of various principles is now well understood, which were either not known at all, or imperfectly known to the ancients. The regular distribution of power into distinct departments; the introduction of legislative balances and checks; the institution of courts composed of judges holding their offices during good behavior; the representation of the people in the legislature by deputies of their own election: these are wholly new discoveries, or have made their principal progress towards perfection in modern times. They are means, and powerful means, by which the excellences of republican government may be retained and its imperfections lessened or avoided. To this catalogue of circumstances that tend to the amelioration of popular systems of civil government, I shall venture, however novel it may appear to some, to add one more, on a principle which has been made the foundation of an objection to the new Constitution; I mean the ENLARGEMENT of the ORBIT within which such systems are to revolve, either in respect to the dimensions of a single State or to the consolidation of several smaller States into one great Confederacy. The latter is that which immediately concerns the object under consideration. It will, however, be of use to examine the principle in its application to a single State, which shall be attended to in another place”.

Federalist No. 4, by John Jay (Concerning Dangers From Foreign Force and Influence)

“But whatever may be our situation, whether firmly united under one national government, or split into a number of confederacies, certain it is, that foreign nations will know and view it exactly as it is; and they will act toward us accordingly. If they see that our national government is efficient and well administered, our trade prudently regulated, our militia properly organized and disciplined, our resources and finances discreetly managed, our credit re-established, our people free, contented, and united, they will be much more disposed to cultivate our friendship than provoke our resentment. If, on the other hand, they find us either destitute of an effectual government (each State doing right or wrong, as to its rulers may seem convenient), or split into three or four independent and probably discordant republics or confederacies, one inclining to Britain, another to France, and a third to Spain, and perhaps played off against each other by the three, what a poor, pitiful figure will America make in their eyes! How liable would she become not only to their contempt but to their outrage, and how soon would dear-bought experience proclaim that when a people or family so divide, it never fails to be against themselves”.

La diferencia entre símbolo y signo: el rey y el emperador como jefes de Estado

Artículo 56, apartado 1, de la Constitución española

«El Rey es el Jefe del Estado, SÍMBOLO de su unidad y permanencia, arbitra y modera el funcionamiento regular de las instituciones, asume la más alta representación del Estado español en las relaciones internacionales, especialmente con las naciones de su comunidad histórica, y ejerce las funciones que le atribuyen expresamente la Constitución y las leyes».

Sputnik, mi amor (Haruki Murakami)

«—Pues sí. Tenía que decirte una cosa. Por eso llamo —contestó Sumire. Carraspeó ligeramente—. Vamos allá. ¿Cuál es la diferencia entre “signo” y “símbolo”?

Tuve una extraña sensación, como su una larga hilera de objetos indeterminados se cruzara por mi cabeza. —Podrías repetirme la pregunta?

Me la repitió.

—¿Cuál es la diferencia entre “signo” y “símbolo”?

Me incorporé en la cama y me pasé el auricular de la mano izquierda a la derecha.

—Es decir, que me has llamado porque quieres saber la diferencia entre “signo” y “símbolo”. Un domingo de madrugada antes del amanecer. ¡Vaya!

—A las cuatro y cuarto de la madrugada —dijo—. No me lo podía quitar de la cabeza. ¿Cuál debe ser la diferencia entre “signo” y “símbolo”? Alguien me lo pregunto hace días y lo había olvidado por completo, pero hoy, mientras me desnudaba para meterme en la cama, me ha venido a la cabeza. Y me ha desvelado. ¿Puedes explicármela tú? ¿La diferencia entre “signo” y “símbolo”?

—A ver —dije contemplando el techo. Explicarle a Sumire algo con lógica, incluso cando yo lo tenía clarísimo, no era tarea fácil—. El emperador es el símbolo de Japón. ¿De acuerdo?

—Pues más o menos —dijo ella.

—Nada de más o menos. Esto es lo que dice la Constitución japonesa —dije armándome de paciencia—. Podrás poner objeciones o tener dudas al respecto, pero si no lo tomas como un hecho, mi razonamiento no puede avanzar.

—De acuerdo. Lo acepto.

—Gracias. Repito: el emperador es el símbolo de Japón. Pero esto no significa que Japón y el emperador sean equivalentes. ¿Me sigues?

—No.

—Es decir, que la flecha apunta en una sola dirección. El emperador es el símbolo de Japón, pero Japón no es símbolo del emperador. ¿Lo entiendes, verdad?

—Creo que sí.

—Pero si, por ejemplo, pusiera: “El emperador es el signo de Japón”, ambos serían equivalentes. Es decir, que cuando nombráramos a Japón nos referiríamos al emperador, y cuando nombráramos al emperador nos referiríamos a Japón. Se puede añadir, incluso, que ambos serián intercambiables: a=b es lo mismo que b=a. En cuatro palabras, esto es lo que significa “signo”.

—O sea, que tú estás hablando de intercambiar el emperador con Japón. ¿Es posible eso?

—No es eso. No. —Sacudí enérgicamente la cabeza—. Sólo pretendía explicarte de manera fácil de entender la diferencia entre “símbolo” y “signo”. No tenía ninguna intención de intercambiar el emperador con Japón. Era sólo una forma de explicártelo.

—Hum —dijo Sumire—. Pero creo que lo he entendido. Como imagen. En fin, me parece que es una cuestión de sentido único o doble sentido, ¿no?

—Un especialista quizás te lo explicara con mayor exactitud. Pero definiéndolo de una manera simple viene a ser eso.

—Siempre me ha admirado lo bien que explicas las cosas».