4 ms·

There will be people here with more knowledge about international constitutional law but I’m pretty sure almost every state has rules in place to prevent it fro

There will be people here with more knowledge about international constitutional law but I’m pretty sure almost every state has rules in place to prevent it from disintegrating. Otherwise, what would stop oneself to declare one’s own little piece of land as independent (with yourself voting for it) and stop paying taxes?

lostmsu 9y ago
Two problems with that: 1) I'm not sure that would be bad 2) Some areas are already relatively independent. Wouldn't harm to make them a bit more so.
dandellion 9y ago
Without an army to defend your borders the government from which you claim independence could just remove you by force... You would have problems to trade so you would have to be completely self sufficient with food, energy etc. You kind of need to reach some critical mass to be able to organize a functioning nation. Getting to city-states could be viable, but I don't think it can go much farther.
DCKing 9y ago
The world is not a libertarian tax fantasy of that degree, no. But it should be possible for groups that have a significant cultural claim to vote on these matters. And it should be possible that if a significant amount of this cultural group agrees on the subject that a mutual understanding can be obtained between the main state and the group they govern over. It seems to me this constitution article was put in place to specifically specific regional identity issues that the country of Spain was built on. Spain is moreso a collection of regional identities than a firm national national identity. As a counterexample, the Dutch constitution does not identify what the unity of the Dutch state actually means or that breaking Dutch unity is against the law a priori [1]. Historically speaking, this has not been a great concern despite historical [2] and modern [3] seperatist movements, because the Dutch "identity" has historically been synonymous with the Dutch nationality to a very large degree. The same cannot be said for Spain. As a disclaimer, I'm not advocating identity politics here. I'm just trying to give a historical explanation. [1]: The Dutch constitution does define treason but what constitutes treason is left rather vague and therefore up to a judge to decide. Would/should the same Spanish judge have deemed this referendum treason in the absence "state unity" laws? Not a rhetorical question. [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belgian_Revolution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belgian_Revolution [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frisian_National_Party https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frisian_National_Party
- barry-cotter 9y ago
  > But it should be possible for groups that have a significant cultural claim to vote on these matters. And it should be possible that if a significant amount of this cultural group agrees on the subject that a mutual understanding can be obtained between the main state and the group they govern over. Why? I agree that people who want to secede should be able to but I see no reason to restrict it to “groups that have a significant cultural claim”. That’s just leaving it up to those in power.
  - ghaff 9y ago
    I don't see it as at all a given that just because 51% of the voting population in some geographic region wants to form their own country that they should always be allowed to do so. In general, I favor self-determination but, especially when a large portion of the population in the region supports the status quo, it's by no means an automatic process.

lostmsu 9y ago

Two problems with that: 1) I'm not sure that would be bad 2) Some areas are already relatively independent. Wouldn't harm to make them a bit more so.

dandellion 9y ago

Without an army to defend your borders the government from which you claim independence could just remove you by force... You would have problems to trade so you would have to be completely self sufficient with food, energy etc. You kind of need to reach some critical mass to be able to organize a functioning nation. Getting to city-states could be viable, but I don't think it can go much farther.

DCKing 9y ago

The world is not a libertarian tax fantasy of that degree, no. But it should be possible for groups that have a significant cultural claim to vote on these matters. And it should be possible that if a significant amount of this cultural group agrees on the subject that a mutual understanding can be obtained between the main state and the group they govern over. It seems to me this constitution article was put in place to specifically specific regional identity issues that the country of Spain was built on. Spain is moreso a collection of regional identities than a firm national national identity. As a counterexample, the Dutch constitution does not identify what the unity of the Dutch state actually means or that breaking Dutch unity is against the law a priori [1]. Historically speaking, this has not been a great concern despite historical [2] and modern [3] seperatist movements, because the Dutch "identity" has historically been synonymous with the Dutch nationality to a very large degree. The same cannot be said for Spain. As a disclaimer, I'm not advocating identity politics here. I'm just trying to give a historical explanation. [1]: The Dutch constitution does define treason but what constitutes treason is left rather vague and therefore up to a judge to decide. Would/should the same Spanish judge have deemed this referendum treason in the absence "state unity" laws? Not a rhetorical question. [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belgian_Revolution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belgian_Revolution [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frisian_National_Party https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frisian_National_Party

barry-cotter 9y ago
> But it should be possible for groups that have a significant cultural claim to vote on these matters. And it should be possible that if a significant amount of this cultural group agrees on the subject that a mutual understanding can be obtained between the main state and the group they govern over. Why? I agree that people who want to secede should be able to but I see no reason to restrict it to “groups that have a significant cultural claim”. That’s just leaving it up to those in power.
- ghaff 9y ago
  I don't see it as at all a given that just because 51% of the voting population in some geographic region wants to form their own country that they should always be allowed to do so. In general, I favor self-determination but, especially when a large portion of the population in the region supports the status quo, it's by no means an automatic process.