3 ms·
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,
by 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 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.