3 ms·
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
by 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 agoI 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 agoYou'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 agoI 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.