6 ms·

You have a point, but I think you miss when you say this was a product of authoritarian rule. Catalonia is basically like an US State. They have control of thei

You have a point, but I think you miss when you say this was a product of authoritarian rule. Catalonia is basically like an US State. They have control of their education, healthcare, police etc, they have their own parliament, and so on. Catalonia already has autonomy. There has been a lot of mistakes on how to handle this situation but Catalan leaders made a calculated decision and forced the situation. You can express any idea, demonstrate, make your own party, but you it's not reasonable to expect that, if you not only break the law, but try to seize a large portion of a country and its resources, and just ignore the will of about half of the population in that very region, the spanish state does nothing. And I'm not even mentioning a shitload of things that are also going on in this issue that makes it way more complicated, typical in this multi-layered spanish power plays.

capableweb 7y ago
> You have a point, but I think you miss when you say this was a product of authoritarian rule. Catalonia is basically like an US State. They have control of their education, healthcare, police etc, they have their own parliament, and so on. Catalonia already has autonomy. It's wrong to say that Catalonia is basically a US state, since US is a federation while Spain is a unitary state. This means the central government can overrule whatever the communities decide on. They don't have the same authority over ruling, as the central power has in the case of Spain. Then I suppose one of the bigger issues remain in answering "Is Catalonia autonomous enough?" and "Who decides how autonomous Catalonia should be?"
- hilbert42 7y ago
  "You can express any idea, demonstrate, make your own party, but you it's not reasonable to expect that, if you not only break the law, but try to seize a large portion of a country and its resources, and just ignore the will of about half of the population in that very region, the spanish state does nothing." I generally agree you in both practice and principle and in a democracy democratic processes say what laws or rules apply. And this is how things normally work in stable democracies. The trouble is that these days democracies are coming under considerable and increasing strain from various competing interests whose worldviews are essentially irreconcilable. Whilst this has always been so to some extent, in the past a 'reasonable' government could evaluate competing interests then come up with effective and acceptable laws based on utilitarian principles. Nowadays that's far from easy—and it's becoming increasingly so for many reasons that are too complex to detail here expect to say that attitudes and norms within societies have changed, and together with improved communications, internationalism and changes over the past 40 or so years in the way capitalism plays a role in society have had much to do with it. At the risk of oversimplifying these complex issues, here's a few examples. Let's say a government is under pressure by a majority of citizens to regulate the bad behavior of certain types corporations but the corporations strenuously fight the proposal on the grounds of loss of jobs, loss of profits, interference in the free market and violations of international trade agreements, etc. so a stalemate ensues and thus nothing or little is done. In a previous era, the issues about 'free markets' and 'violations of international trade agreements' would have played a much lesser role and back then corporations effectively had less influence on government policy, thus governments would have found it easier to regulate. These days, there are so many instances where governments have failed to regulate that the citizenry has a justifiable right to be annoyed and to assume the democratic process has failed it. [Incidentally, one such matter has again made it into today's HN, that's the huge price Big Pharma is charging for drugs—that government has failed to act for so long is symptomatic of the problem: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21250491 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21250491] Another is the rise of identity politics. Whatever one's views on this are it is hard to disagree with the fact that nowadays it is increasingly difficult to govern a country where its citizens hold so few views in common. Clearly, a society wherein a majority hold common views and interests makes governance easier but today this structure has broken down to the extent that governing for all is very difficult, especially so in a democracy. Once only four or five decades ago, those within a society were much more homogeneous in their views than they are today. Back then a majority of citizens held similar views as they were bound together by a common culture or race, or by religion and or by isolation from other societies any or all of which would have steered the society in certain directions. Today, the parallel between the governance of a democracy and the parable from Aesop's fable* The Man, The Boy, and The Donkey of 'try to please all and you will please none' is truer than ever. I would add that in this era where one's rights and sense of entitlement trump the Rousseauian notion of the General Will of the Citizenry then governments are damned if they do or they don't. Quo vadis? We should look to history for examples of what happens when citizenries consider their governance has gone beyond the pale. All too often, we see that when a majority of citizens hold such high levels of mistrust in and discontent with their government then it often boils over into an uprising, insurrection or revolution, and inevitably, it does not end well—even for the 'winning' side. Moreover, we've many notable examples whose outcomes we actually accept (and often respect) as we live with and abide by the rules and laws they've since engendered, notably the French Revolution, English Civil War, American War of Independence and the Russian Revolutions of 1905 and 1917 just to name a few. Sure, the outcome of every one of these social upheavals was political change but the cost in human terms was enormous: they were all brutal and bloody events that for many thousands of citizens ended in tragedy and or death. I would suggest that no reasonable person would ever recommend these ways of achieving change unless is was absolutely the last resort. That leaves the issue of what do we do short of revolution when democracy breaks down to the point where effective governance is lost; for, as I see it, that's where those of us who live in democracies are headed right now. In almost every country, both democratic and totalitarian, we are seeing many laws enacted that are increasingly authoritarian by nature and in their extent, all of which inexorably result in fewer freedoms being available for individuals. Frankly, I consider that living in a state where every citizen, year after year, has less and less autonomy to act as very worrisome and quite frightening—especially so when there is seemingly no end in sight and where politicians consistently fail to provide both sufficient explanations and justifications of such laws. It's in this light that I suggested that Catalonia be set free of its Spanish chains (irrespective of Spanish laws) as this is probably the most efficacious and pragmatic solution—at least in the short term. It too is likely to be the best solution when it comes to minimizing future violence and bloodshed, which as history amply demonstrates, is highly likely if the matter continues to fester. Essentially, in respect of Catalonia, Spain should collectively pull its head in and accept that it has lost some national sovereignty—after all; it's something Spain has had to do many times over the centuries as the Spanish Empire crumbled so by now it ought to know how to manage the loss successfully. The matter of how we citizens should manage our democracies in the longer-term should be foremost in the thoughts of every citizen right now. We citizens not only must re-establish trust between those whom we elect to govern us but also forge new and effective covenants that will be the basis of all future and ongoing law. We should not expect this process to be easy or quick as entrenched power-hungry bureaucrats and implacable governments will no doubt fight us citizens every inch of the way. - * https://fablesofaesop.com/the-man-the-boy-and-the-donkey.html https://fablesofaesop.com/the-man-the-boy-and-the-donkey.htm...
  - iagovar 7y ago
    Look, I'm a sociologist so I totally get where you are coming from, but your thougts are mostly tangential. Catalonia can enact his own laws, and it does so. There's very little substance if you say "being freed from the chains of Spain". There isn't any massive difference in the understanding of the world between catalans and the rest of the peninsula. You could pimpoint some laws here and there, and some simbols, but it's pretty much it. There's no systemic repression of Catalans of any sorts because of speaking or being Catalan. I know that an independence supporter will disagree and is willing to paste thousands of links here, but IMO from the big picture there's no much substance. They are not loosing autonomy as you said, as it's been happening quite the opposite. There's a lot of stuff happening daily and a lot of propaganda going on. The Catalan government is very good at this, and it's difficult to make foreigners understand how much effort they actually put on this. To give you a glimpse, yesterday they sent their supporters to occupy the Barcelona airport. Politicians are not stupid, and they know that place is guarded by national police and the military. Some time later, as it seemed such actions wouldn't yield any PR material, they've sent their own police. That's the videos foreigners have seen in their media. Obviously, the majority of them don't have to know that Catalans have their own police, and they were sent there coordinated by their own government, that it wasn't spontaneous. And most media won't clarify it. Today, their explanation for internal consumption is that they had to send the Mossos d'esquadra (Catalan police) because they had to "protect the demonstrators from themselves", they were afraid to be accused fo sedition again and some other BS, that of course will be noise tomorrow. I know there's enough speculation in the last two paragraphs, but I worked for them for some time, so I know how they think. And that's my take on it because, if it wasn't for that, it would be absurd to send your people somewhere and then beat em just because. And this stuff is happening on a Weekly basis. Now, you think the most pragmatic solution would be just accept "the fact" that Spain lost Catalonia, and that it has to become another country. Now, what happens with half the catalans that want to remain spanish? Do we just forget about them? What if they become violent? What would do the Catalan Government if they become their own country and half its population does the same they have been doing? What if they win elections and want to rejoin? (I forgot, that wouldn't be possible under the new catalan law, they wanted to make parties against secession illegal), are we going to split and join multiple times because of this? I mean, there's a lot to put in a cost/benefit analysis and from my POV is unclear at best. There's no clear solution to avoid conflict even if we splitted to day and we had it in good terms. And I'm not even mentioning that the most probably economic outcome for Catalonia would be to suffer massively due to loosing it's status with the EU, not being anymore the preferred port for trading with Spain and basically loosing it's status as an asset for Spain. It's natural for everyone to try to frame events in a local setting, but take in account that you are not just witnessing two ants fighting for a piece a bread, but organizations with a lot of power and resources, that actively try to shape your opinion on the issue.
dwild 7y ago
> just ignore the will of about half of the population in that very region The half didn't give their opinion, they didn't ignore it, in fact they tried to do everything they could to get their position even though Spain did everything they could to not let anyone give it.
- iagovar 7y ago
  If someone boycotts your referendum I'd say they have a pretty strong opinion on the matter.

capableweb 7y ago

> You have a point, but I think you miss when you say this was a product of authoritarian rule. Catalonia is basically like an US State. They have control of their education, healthcare, police etc, they have their own parliament, and so on. Catalonia already has autonomy. It's wrong to say that Catalonia is basically a US state, since US is a federation while Spain is a unitary state. This means the central government can overrule whatever the communities decide on. They don't have the same authority over ruling, as the central power has in the case of Spain. Then I suppose one of the bigger issues remain in answering "Is Catalonia autonomous enough?" and "Who decides how autonomous Catalonia should be?"

hilbert42 7y ago
"You can express any idea, demonstrate, make your own party, but you it's not reasonable to expect that, if you not only break the law, but try to seize a large portion of a country and its resources, and just ignore the will of about half of the population in that very region, the spanish state does nothing." I generally agree you in both practice and principle and in a democracy democratic processes say what laws or rules apply. And this is how things normally work in stable democracies. The trouble is that these days democracies are coming under considerable and increasing strain from various competing interests whose worldviews are essentially irreconcilable. Whilst this has always been so to some extent, in the past a 'reasonable' government could evaluate competing interests then come up with effective and acceptable laws based on utilitarian principles. Nowadays that's far from easy—and it's becoming increasingly so for many reasons that are too complex to detail here expect to say that attitudes and norms within societies have changed, and together with improved communications, internationalism and changes over the past 40 or so years in the way capitalism plays a role in society have had much to do with it. At the risk of oversimplifying these complex issues, here's a few examples. Let's say a government is under pressure by a majority of citizens to regulate the bad behavior of certain types corporations but the corporations strenuously fight the proposal on the grounds of loss of jobs, loss of profits, interference in the free market and violations of international trade agreements, etc. so a stalemate ensues and thus nothing or little is done. In a previous era, the issues about 'free markets' and 'violations of international trade agreements' would have played a much lesser role and back then corporations effectively had less influence on government policy, thus governments would have found it easier to regulate. These days, there are so many instances where governments have failed to regulate that the citizenry has a justifiable right to be annoyed and to assume the democratic process has failed it. [Incidentally, one such matter has again made it into today's HN, that's the huge price Big Pharma is charging for drugs—that government has failed to act for so long is symptomatic of the problem: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21250491 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21250491] Another is the rise of identity politics. Whatever one's views on this are it is hard to disagree with the fact that nowadays it is increasingly difficult to govern a country where its citizens hold so few views in common. Clearly, a society wherein a majority hold common views and interests makes governance easier but today this structure has broken down to the extent that governing for all is very difficult, especially so in a democracy. Once only four or five decades ago, those within a society were much more homogeneous in their views than they are today. Back then a majority of citizens held similar views as they were bound together by a common culture or race, or by religion and or by isolation from other societies any or all of which would have steered the society in certain directions. Today, the parallel between the governance of a democracy and the parable from Aesop's fable* The Man, The Boy, and The Donkey of 'try to please all and you will please none' is truer than ever. I would add that in this era where one's rights and sense of entitlement trump the Rousseauian notion of the General Will of the Citizenry then governments are damned if they do or they don't. Quo vadis? We should look to history for examples of what happens when citizenries consider their governance has gone beyond the pale. All too often, we see that when a majority of citizens hold such high levels of mistrust in and discontent with their government then it often boils over into an uprising, insurrection or revolution, and inevitably, it does not end well—even for the 'winning' side. Moreover, we've many notable examples whose outcomes we actually accept (and often respect) as we live with and abide by the rules and laws they've since engendered, notably the French Revolution, English Civil War, American War of Independence and the Russian Revolutions of 1905 and 1917 just to name a few. Sure, the outcome of every one of these social upheavals was political change but the cost in human terms was enormous: they were all brutal and bloody events that for many thousands of citizens ended in tragedy and or death. I would suggest that no reasonable person would ever recommend these ways of achieving change unless is was absolutely the last resort. That leaves the issue of what do we do short of revolution when democracy breaks down to the point where effective governance is lost; for, as I see it, that's where those of us who live in democracies are headed right now. In almost every country, both democratic and totalitarian, we are seeing many laws enacted that are increasingly authoritarian by nature and in their extent, all of which inexorably result in fewer freedoms being available for individuals. Frankly, I consider that living in a state where every citizen, year after year, has less and less autonomy to act as very worrisome and quite frightening—especially so when there is seemingly no end in sight and where politicians consistently fail to provide both sufficient explanations and justifications of such laws. It's in this light that I suggested that Catalonia be set free of its Spanish chains (irrespective of Spanish laws) as this is probably the most efficacious and pragmatic solution—at least in the short term. It too is likely to be the best solution when it comes to minimizing future violence and bloodshed, which as history amply demonstrates, is highly likely if the matter continues to fester. Essentially, in respect of Catalonia, Spain should collectively pull its head in and accept that it has lost some national sovereignty—after all; it's something Spain has had to do many times over the centuries as the Spanish Empire crumbled so by now it ought to know how to manage the loss successfully. The matter of how we citizens should manage our democracies in the longer-term should be foremost in the thoughts of every citizen right now. We citizens not only must re-establish trust between those whom we elect to govern us but also forge new and effective covenants that will be the basis of all future and ongoing law. We should not expect this process to be easy or quick as entrenched power-hungry bureaucrats and implacable governments will no doubt fight us citizens every inch of the way. - * https://fablesofaesop.com/the-man-the-boy-and-the-donkey.html https://fablesofaesop.com/the-man-the-boy-and-the-donkey.htm...
- iagovar 7y ago
  Look, I'm a sociologist so I totally get where you are coming from, but your thougts are mostly tangential. Catalonia can enact his own laws, and it does so. There's very little substance if you say "being freed from the chains of Spain". There isn't any massive difference in the understanding of the world between catalans and the rest of the peninsula. You could pimpoint some laws here and there, and some simbols, but it's pretty much it. There's no systemic repression of Catalans of any sorts because of speaking or being Catalan. I know that an independence supporter will disagree and is willing to paste thousands of links here, but IMO from the big picture there's no much substance. They are not loosing autonomy as you said, as it's been happening quite the opposite. There's a lot of stuff happening daily and a lot of propaganda going on. The Catalan government is very good at this, and it's difficult to make foreigners understand how much effort they actually put on this. To give you a glimpse, yesterday they sent their supporters to occupy the Barcelona airport. Politicians are not stupid, and they know that place is guarded by national police and the military. Some time later, as it seemed such actions wouldn't yield any PR material, they've sent their own police. That's the videos foreigners have seen in their media. Obviously, the majority of them don't have to know that Catalans have their own police, and they were sent there coordinated by their own government, that it wasn't spontaneous. And most media won't clarify it. Today, their explanation for internal consumption is that they had to send the Mossos d'esquadra (Catalan police) because they had to "protect the demonstrators from themselves", they were afraid to be accused fo sedition again and some other BS, that of course will be noise tomorrow. I know there's enough speculation in the last two paragraphs, but I worked for them for some time, so I know how they think. And that's my take on it because, if it wasn't for that, it would be absurd to send your people somewhere and then beat em just because. And this stuff is happening on a Weekly basis. Now, you think the most pragmatic solution would be just accept "the fact" that Spain lost Catalonia, and that it has to become another country. Now, what happens with half the catalans that want to remain spanish? Do we just forget about them? What if they become violent? What would do the Catalan Government if they become their own country and half its population does the same they have been doing? What if they win elections and want to rejoin? (I forgot, that wouldn't be possible under the new catalan law, they wanted to make parties against secession illegal), are we going to split and join multiple times because of this? I mean, there's a lot to put in a cost/benefit analysis and from my POV is unclear at best. There's no clear solution to avoid conflict even if we splitted to day and we had it in good terms. And I'm not even mentioning that the most probably economic outcome for Catalonia would be to suffer massively due to loosing it's status with the EU, not being anymore the preferred port for trading with Spain and basically loosing it's status as an asset for Spain. It's natural for everyone to try to frame events in a local setting, but take in account that you are not just witnessing two ants fighting for a piece a bread, but organizations with a lot of power and resources, that actively try to shape your opinion on the issue.

dwild 7y ago

> just ignore the will of about half of the population in that very region The half didn't give their opinion, they didn't ignore it, in fact they tried to do everything they could to get their position even though Spain did everything they could to not let anyone give it.

iagovar 7y ago
If someone boycotts your referendum I'd say they have a pretty strong opinion on the matter.