4 ms·

> No, because neither China or Venezuela are considered to be under the rule of law. Considered... by who? Do their governments view themselves that way?

x220 9y ago
As considered by reasonable outside observers which are not corrupt. The corruption in these countries and the actions they take which are based on decrees and fiat, rather than actions carried out equally and fairly according to defined law, have been widely documented.
- throwaway613834 9y ago
  > As considered by reasonable outside observers which are not corrupt. You really don't seem to be willing to consider that two reasonable people can have differing opinions about the same situation. Who appoints these "reasonable outside observers"? And who defines who or what is "corrupt"? It all just boils down to what you yourself view as corrupt or reasonable.
- AsyncAwait 9y ago
  >As considered by reasonable outside observers which are not corrupt. So...people's personal opinions then?
- ImSkeptical 9y ago
  I like to think of myself as both reasonable and not corrupt. I can't see how being obliged to give up your right to secede because a document you didn't write, sign, or agree to, says you give up that right is any different than the decree of a dictator.
  - mseebach 9y ago
    You're frankly not a reasonable source of opinion on the rule of law if you don't consider laws you didn't write, sign or agree to, legal. Also, if Spain is like most countries (but I really don't know this for a fact), but elected representatives will have signed or sworn or something similar to uphold the constitution.
    - ImSkeptical 9y ago
      I asked how a law you have nothing to do with is different from a dictator's decree. You have no say in either of them. I think the legitimacy difference has to do with inalienable rights. People have a right to representation in their own governance. That's what the dictator gets wrong. People also have a right to liberty - i.e. To not be slaves. A "law" that says you can't ever secede is making people slaves by taking away their right to withdraw from the political union they're a part of. The argument above is that it's legal because it's written down. What I hoped to call attention to is that simply writing something down and calling it a law isn't necessarily better than what a dictator does.
gpvos 9y ago
Spain has an independent judiciary. In China, and I guess also Venezuela although I know less about it, the judiciary is heavily influenced by the government. Of course their governments see that as the way it should be. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_law#Rule_of_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_law#Rule_of_law : > Despite the newly elevated role of courts in Chinese society, there still remains some consensus about defects in China's legal system in regards to progressing towards the rule of law. I have never read anything similar about Spain.
- ryanlol 9y ago
  >Spain has an independent judiciary. http://en.administracion.gob.es/pag_Home/espanaAdmon/comoSeOrganizaEstado/Institucionesl_Estado/PoderJudicial.html http://en.administracion.gob.es/pag_Home/espanaAdmon/comoSeO... >Parliament approves the budget of the judiciary. "Independent" is a strong word here.
  - euyyn 9y ago
    The judiciary in Spain sentenced a Ministro del Interior (the 2nd most powerful political position after President) to 10 years in prison. All western democracies have the executive branch influence the judiciary in more or less degree. But it's a huge jump from that to single-party systems like China or, de facto, Venezuela.
    - wott 9y ago
      > The judiciary in Spain sentenced a Ministro del Interior (the 2nd most powerful political position after President) to 10 years in prison. And now, please inform us of how long this murderer actually served, just for the laugh. Was it 1 year? 6 months? 3 months? And for even more laugh, just tell us how his sentence vanished, thanks to... the government's pardon. Your example is going against your point!
      - euyyn 9y ago
        Most if not all western democracies give the Government the power to pardon convicts. It's one of the checks the three branches have against each other. I, along with the vast majority of Spaniards, agree that it's been abused and should be restricted. But if your argument is that the courts in all these countries are puppets of their governments based on the fact that they have the power to pardon later on, I don't think it's a strong argument.

x220 9y ago

As considered by reasonable outside observers which are not corrupt. The corruption in these countries and the actions they take which are based on decrees and fiat, rather than actions carried out equally and fairly according to defined law, have been widely documented.

throwaway613834 9y ago
> As considered by reasonable outside observers which are not corrupt. You really don't seem to be willing to consider that two reasonable people can have differing opinions about the same situation. Who appoints these "reasonable outside observers"? And who defines who or what is "corrupt"? It all just boils down to what you yourself view as corrupt or reasonable.
AsyncAwait 9y ago
>As considered by reasonable outside observers which are not corrupt. So...people's personal opinions then?
ImSkeptical 9y ago
I like to think of myself as both reasonable and not corrupt. I can't see how being obliged to give up your right to secede because a document you didn't write, sign, or agree to, says you give up that right is any different than the decree of a dictator.
- mseebach 9y ago
  You're frankly not a reasonable source of opinion on the rule of law if you don't consider laws you didn't write, sign or agree to, legal. Also, if Spain is like most countries (but I really don't know this for a fact), but elected representatives will have signed or sworn or something similar to uphold the constitution.
  - ImSkeptical 9y ago
    I asked how a law you have nothing to do with is different from a dictator's decree. You have no say in either of them. I think the legitimacy difference has to do with inalienable rights. People have a right to representation in their own governance. That's what the dictator gets wrong. People also have a right to liberty - i.e. To not be slaves. A "law" that says you can't ever secede is making people slaves by taking away their right to withdraw from the political union they're a part of. The argument above is that it's legal because it's written down. What I hoped to call attention to is that simply writing something down and calling it a law isn't necessarily better than what a dictator does.

gpvos 9y ago

Spain has an independent judiciary. In China, and I guess also Venezuela although I know less about it, the judiciary is heavily influenced by the government. Of course their governments see that as the way it should be. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_law#Rule_of_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_law#Rule_of_law : > Despite the newly elevated role of courts in Chinese society, there still remains some consensus about defects in China's legal system in regards to progressing towards the rule of law. I have never read anything similar about Spain.

ryanlol 9y ago
>Spain has an independent judiciary. http://en.administracion.gob.es/pag_Home/espanaAdmon/comoSeOrganizaEstado/Institucionesl_Estado/PoderJudicial.html http://en.administracion.gob.es/pag_Home/espanaAdmon/comoSeO... >Parliament approves the budget of the judiciary. "Independent" is a strong word here.
- euyyn 9y ago
  The judiciary in Spain sentenced a Ministro del Interior (the 2nd most powerful political position after President) to 10 years in prison. All western democracies have the executive branch influence the judiciary in more or less degree. But it's a huge jump from that to single-party systems like China or, de facto, Venezuela.
  - wott 9y ago
    > The judiciary in Spain sentenced a Ministro del Interior (the 2nd most powerful political position after President) to 10 years in prison. And now, please inform us of how long this murderer actually served, just for the laugh. Was it 1 year? 6 months? 3 months? And for even more laugh, just tell us how his sentence vanished, thanks to... the government's pardon. Your example is going against your point!
    - euyyn 9y ago
      Most if not all western democracies give the Government the power to pardon convicts. It's one of the checks the three branches have against each other. I, along with the vast majority of Spaniards, agree that it's been abused and should be restricted. But if your argument is that the courts in all these countries are puppets of their governments based on the fact that they have the power to pardon later on, I don't think it's a strong argument.