5 ms·

The majority in Spain doesn't want them to become independent. Democracy has this problem, it's called "the tyranny of the masses". There is no easy solution.

Aaargh20318 9y ago
> There is no easy solution. Catalonia is a well-defined region, redefine the borders and be done with it. Seems easy enough. If these people don't want to be part of Spain anymore, why force them to stay ? There is no point to any of it.
- breischl 9y ago
  >Catalonia is a well-defined region That's not enough though. There are people who have tried to declare an independent country of their land, or their house, or their bedroom[1]. Clearly one person declaring their bedroom to be independent is silly and not allowable, but a large reason is. So somewhere there's a line, right? [1] - http://www.atlasobscura.com/places/kingdom-of-talossa http://www.atlasobscura.com/places/kingdom-of-talossa
  - ChristianBundy 9y ago
    > Clearly one person declaring their bedroom to be independent is silly and not allowable, but a large reason is. Clearly states are silly and not allowable, but here we are.
- codedokode 9y ago
  If you allow any region to declare independence then there will be thousands or maybe even more states. Different provinces and regions are united into a country because this way they have more military power to defend themselves. When there is a lot of small states it will be easy to conquer them one by one - either by external enemy or by one of those small states. At least this is what happened in the Middle Age.
  - Aaargh20318 9y ago
    > If you allow any region to declare independence then there will be thousands or maybe even more states. You say this like it's a bad thing. > Different provinces and regions are united into a country because this way they have more military power to defend themselves. Exactly. So there are many benefits for people to form larger groups, but please let them decide that for themselves. This kind of negates your first point, if there are obvious benefits then there won't be thousands of states, because people would recognise they are better off together.
    - gambiting 9y ago
      >> because people would recognise they are better off together I don't believe for a second that people will. There are groups of people who don't give a crap about "being better off" - they care about showing those damn Spanish/British/French/German/Polish/<insert group name here> what they think and being able to "finally decide for themselves" which is complete nonsense. If people could so easily see the benefits of staying together then Brexit wouldn't happen and we wouldn't be seeing nationalist movements all over Europe nowadays. The problem is that the benefits are not obvious and you have to actually educate yourself a bit about them - but if someone is unwilling to put the energy into it, then it's not going to happen.
      - mercer 9y ago
        While I do agree with you, there's a bit of me that wonders whether allowing some regression on a smaller scale (although Brexit is by no means small) might keep us from becoming a powder keg that explodes at a later time. Already after Brexit I've heard quite a few reports of 1) young Brits elsewhere in Europe becoming much more engaged with politics because 'now it matters', and 2) Brexit voters who now regret their decision because it affects them negatively (or is likely to). Again, I agree with you and I don't think it's ideal, but part of me feels letting people make decisions like this, even if I personally think they're (often) stupid decisions prompted by populism, might be better than jamming 'the educated choice' down their throats. But I'm not expert on the matter. Are there any historical analogues that might provide some insight here?
- throwaway76543 9y ago
  Atherton, California is a well-defined region with a rather fabulous level of wealth. Are you suggesting that the town of Atherton ought to be able to vote for independence, in order to avoid paying state and federal taxes? May any geographically delineated group opt out of the local government structure? Surely you can see the flaw in your line of reasoning.
  - occultist_throw 9y ago
    Sure. But they had better come up with a currency, nation/state political system in which others can adhere to, tax system, military, and all other things that nation-states do. I dont think a "town", regardless of their richness, would be able to handle that. Now, I could see the eastern seabed, with the bounds of the Appalachian mountains as a "country". I could also see the northern and southern areas between the 2 mountain ranges being their own countries as well. But not a "town".
    - MrPatan 9y ago
      I'm on the phone with San Marino, Monaco, The Vatican, Lichtenstein, Luxembourg, Andorra and several tiny islands in the middle of nowhere. I'm trying to tell them the sad news that occultist_throw can't see them existing at all, it wouldn't be viable, you see. I'm trying to soften the blow, what do you think I should tell them?
  - ghaff 9y ago
    Only somewhat facetiously, sure. Why not? Though I expect that Atherton won't be as fabulously wealthy once its residents can't get visas to work in the United States or maybe even visit. It might also be tough if they lose access to electricity and water they need.
  - turbinerneiter 9y ago
    There is no flaw. If a group of people doesn't want to be governed by a certain body they should have the right to secede. A government derives it's right to rule by the people accepting this rule. Obviously this is a really hard problem and it opens up the door for all kind of abuses, but ultimately democracy demands that. Democracy first needs a demos. A group of people who feel connected by whatever reason they like and agree to form a community. If the borders of the community are not drawn by the community itself, it's not democratic. Just look at all the wars being fought about borders which were drawn by colonial forces and didn't respect the locals. In this I also see the power of parliament's and federal states - even if your vote don't win the election, you are still represented in parliament and you have the local gov. Without that, it would be hard to keep regions where a majority voted different than the whole nations majority. Globalism, neo-liberalism, individualism - all that severely reduced the solidarity people have which each other. The internet then connected us with people that we share much more with than just area. All nations, democracy as a whole will have to face this tremendous challenge. And I have no idea how.
- paulddraper 9y ago
  This is what the Confederate States of America did. That line of thinking is very unpopular, at least in the US since that time.
  - ghaff 9y ago
    No. And I don't think any US state would seriously contemplate secession today however polarized politics are. That said, if any state or group of states did overwhelmingly want to breakaway from the US, it seems unlikely that there would be meaningful support for the federal government to go to war to stop them.
    - paulddraper 9y ago
      There have been the Calexit movement [1] and various movements in Texas [2]. Texas in particular has some substantial poll numbers. Given that states rights are far less than they were in the 19th century, I expect the US government to be even more likely to prevent succession in the infinitesimal chance it would happen. [1] http://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article164566542.html http://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert... [2] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_secession_movements https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_secession_movements
      - ghaff 9y ago
        I think it's one thing to tell a pollster "OMG, if Hillary wins Texas should leave the US" and it's another to actually vote for it. And, even if one supports the idea that states should be able to do this, it's still reasonable to argue that it should require a significant supermajority. Your point about the erosion of states rights is certainly fair. In any case, it's hard to say what "prevent secession" means without the context of the circumstances.

Aaargh20318 9y ago

> There is no easy solution. Catalonia is a well-defined region, redefine the borders and be done with it. Seems easy enough. If these people don't want to be part of Spain anymore, why force them to stay ? There is no point to any of it.

breischl 9y ago
>Catalonia is a well-defined region That's not enough though. There are people who have tried to declare an independent country of their land, or their house, or their bedroom[1]. Clearly one person declaring their bedroom to be independent is silly and not allowable, but a large reason is. So somewhere there's a line, right? [1] - http://www.atlasobscura.com/places/kingdom-of-talossa http://www.atlasobscura.com/places/kingdom-of-talossa
- ChristianBundy 9y ago
  > Clearly one person declaring their bedroom to be independent is silly and not allowable, but a large reason is. Clearly states are silly and not allowable, but here we are.
codedokode 9y ago
If you allow any region to declare independence then there will be thousands or maybe even more states. Different provinces and regions are united into a country because this way they have more military power to defend themselves. When there is a lot of small states it will be easy to conquer them one by one - either by external enemy or by one of those small states. At least this is what happened in the Middle Age.
- Aaargh20318 9y ago
  > If you allow any region to declare independence then there will be thousands or maybe even more states. You say this like it's a bad thing. > Different provinces and regions are united into a country because this way they have more military power to defend themselves. Exactly. So there are many benefits for people to form larger groups, but please let them decide that for themselves. This kind of negates your first point, if there are obvious benefits then there won't be thousands of states, because people would recognise they are better off together.
  - gambiting 9y ago
    >> because people would recognise they are better off together I don't believe for a second that people will. There are groups of people who don't give a crap about "being better off" - they care about showing those damn Spanish/British/French/German/Polish/<insert group name here> what they think and being able to "finally decide for themselves" which is complete nonsense. If people could so easily see the benefits of staying together then Brexit wouldn't happen and we wouldn't be seeing nationalist movements all over Europe nowadays. The problem is that the benefits are not obvious and you have to actually educate yourself a bit about them - but if someone is unwilling to put the energy into it, then it's not going to happen.
    - mercer 9y ago
      While I do agree with you, there's a bit of me that wonders whether allowing some regression on a smaller scale (although Brexit is by no means small) might keep us from becoming a powder keg that explodes at a later time. Already after Brexit I've heard quite a few reports of 1) young Brits elsewhere in Europe becoming much more engaged with politics because 'now it matters', and 2) Brexit voters who now regret their decision because it affects them negatively (or is likely to). Again, I agree with you and I don't think it's ideal, but part of me feels letting people make decisions like this, even if I personally think they're (often) stupid decisions prompted by populism, might be better than jamming 'the educated choice' down their throats. But I'm not expert on the matter. Are there any historical analogues that might provide some insight here?
throwaway76543 9y ago
Atherton, California is a well-defined region with a rather fabulous level of wealth. Are you suggesting that the town of Atherton ought to be able to vote for independence, in order to avoid paying state and federal taxes? May any geographically delineated group opt out of the local government structure? Surely you can see the flaw in your line of reasoning.
- occultist_throw 9y ago
  Sure. But they had better come up with a currency, nation/state political system in which others can adhere to, tax system, military, and all other things that nation-states do. I dont think a "town", regardless of their richness, would be able to handle that. Now, I could see the eastern seabed, with the bounds of the Appalachian mountains as a "country". I could also see the northern and southern areas between the 2 mountain ranges being their own countries as well. But not a "town".
  - MrPatan 9y ago
    I'm on the phone with San Marino, Monaco, The Vatican, Lichtenstein, Luxembourg, Andorra and several tiny islands in the middle of nowhere. I'm trying to tell them the sad news that occultist_throw can't see them existing at all, it wouldn't be viable, you see. I'm trying to soften the blow, what do you think I should tell them?
- ghaff 9y ago
  Only somewhat facetiously, sure. Why not? Though I expect that Atherton won't be as fabulously wealthy once its residents can't get visas to work in the United States or maybe even visit. It might also be tough if they lose access to electricity and water they need.
- turbinerneiter 9y ago
  There is no flaw. If a group of people doesn't want to be governed by a certain body they should have the right to secede. A government derives it's right to rule by the people accepting this rule. Obviously this is a really hard problem and it opens up the door for all kind of abuses, but ultimately democracy demands that. Democracy first needs a demos. A group of people who feel connected by whatever reason they like and agree to form a community. If the borders of the community are not drawn by the community itself, it's not democratic. Just look at all the wars being fought about borders which were drawn by colonial forces and didn't respect the locals. In this I also see the power of parliament's and federal states - even if your vote don't win the election, you are still represented in parliament and you have the local gov. Without that, it would be hard to keep regions where a majority voted different than the whole nations majority. Globalism, neo-liberalism, individualism - all that severely reduced the solidarity people have which each other. The internet then connected us with people that we share much more with than just area. All nations, democracy as a whole will have to face this tremendous challenge. And I have no idea how.
paulddraper 9y ago
This is what the Confederate States of America did. That line of thinking is very unpopular, at least in the US since that time.
- ghaff 9y ago
  No. And I don't think any US state would seriously contemplate secession today however polarized politics are. That said, if any state or group of states did overwhelmingly want to breakaway from the US, it seems unlikely that there would be meaningful support for the federal government to go to war to stop them.
  - paulddraper 9y ago
    There have been the Calexit movement [1] and various movements in Texas [2]. Texas in particular has some substantial poll numbers. Given that states rights are far less than they were in the 19th century, I expect the US government to be even more likely to prevent succession in the infinitesimal chance it would happen. [1] http://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article164566542.html http://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert... [2] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_secession_movements https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_secession_movements
    - ghaff 9y ago
      I think it's one thing to tell a pollster "OMG, if Hillary wins Texas should leave the US" and it's another to actually vote for it. And, even if one supports the idea that states should be able to do this, it's still reasonable to argue that it should require a significant supermajority. Your point about the erosion of states rights is certainly fair. In any case, it's hard to say what "prevent secession" means without the context of the circumstances.