4 ms·

Thanks for sharing your opinion and being open about your bias and reasoning. Thanks also for pointing out the power asymmetry, as this seems to be often left o

Thanks for sharing your opinion and being open about your bias and reasoning. Thanks also for pointing out the power asymmetry, as this seems to be often left out from the equation and is IMHO a key point. I think we can analyze the same problem from many different points of view and depth, but ultimately for me it boils down to it being immoral for some groups of people to prevent other groups of people from attaining a status of equal --it implies superiority. If the moral solution (embracing self-determination) poses an existential threat to a country (Spain in this case), I think the sensible thing to do is to explore possible solutions such as a gradual application of this right that allows everyone to adjust. Anything else is just asserting the immoral superiority of a group of people over another, and if this legitimized as an existential need, this only strengthens the argument that independence is also an existential need. Because both sides could pull the argument of of "as with all complex problems, there are trade-offs to be made, one can't aim for absolute democracy at the expense of everything else, we should be careful with absolutes because they are not realistic" to justify any mains of attaining their goal. I think this is a very dangerous and destructive point of view. And to clarify, I didn't mean to pontify about what's moral and what isn't. This is just my point of view, though I do think it's fair.

charlysl 7y ago
Thank you for your polite reply. You have a point, although I disagree that the pro-independence politians are acting morally. Spain, at pains to act within the bounds of legality, is held to much higher moral standards, and here is another assymetry, this one favourable to and constantly exploited by the independentists, who seem free from the constraints of legality. What is shown in the international media is just the tip of the iceberg. It doesn't show the independentists' feeling of superiority (rather than equality). I have read the pro-independence media, and their reader's comments, in Catalonian, to get an unfiltered view of their thinking, and the difference with what they project internationally is glaring. The Catalonian constitution, approved by their parliament is spite of its illegality, which they plan to adopt in the case of independence, has severe restrictions on press freedom and judiciary independence, far less democratic than the current situation in Catalonia. They brand Spaniards from other regions living and working in Catalonia as "inmigrants"; Catalonians in other regions of Spain are treated there as equals. Maybe I am too cynical and influenced by realpolitik, but I am afraid that real world politics works mostly according to interests (and power; rules are made according to these) rather than just morals (although these too are a factor when it comes to interests, as Machiavello said it is very important to hold the moral high ground). I find this approach unpleasant, but also think that it allows one to better understand how the world actually works, rather than how it should work (I am powerless to change the world, but at least I can try to understand it). Democracy is often used by western governments and groups as a very powerful emotional propaganda tool (for the first time AFIK, in the first world war against the kaiser). I remember when Iraq and Afghanistan were invaded in the name of democracy. The real motives were never stated in the open, they never are, what matters is to create a narrative that the masses will buy; it is only possible to understand what happens by taking a global view and considering multiple factors (of course I don't claim that I do really understand, I just mistrust whatever is claimed by the media of both sides and suspect the real motives are often hidden). Is my view destructive? What if allowing a referendum results in the collapse of Spanish cohesion, very likely. Wouldn't the resulting turmoil be more destructive that the status quo (which I admit is far from ideal, but IMHO the lesser evil)? This is what I mean by absolutes, I believe that one should approach complicated problems globally, rather than by optimizing for just for one local property, even if it's a noble one such as democracy or self-determination. Look at the Arab Spring, there are many lessons here. I like Bertrand Russell's take on liberalism: a difficult balance between maximizing personal freedom while preserving social cohesion.

charlysl 7y ago

Thank you for your polite reply. You have a point, although I disagree that the pro-independence politians are acting morally. Spain, at pains to act within the bounds of legality, is held to much higher moral standards, and here is another assymetry, this one favourable to and constantly exploited by the independentists, who seem free from the constraints of legality. What is shown in the international media is just the tip of the iceberg. It doesn't show the independentists' feeling of superiority (rather than equality). I have read the pro-independence media, and their reader's comments, in Catalonian, to get an unfiltered view of their thinking, and the difference with what they project internationally is glaring. The Catalonian constitution, approved by their parliament is spite of its illegality, which they plan to adopt in the case of independence, has severe restrictions on press freedom and judiciary independence, far less democratic than the current situation in Catalonia. They brand Spaniards from other regions living and working in Catalonia as "inmigrants"; Catalonians in other regions of Spain are treated there as equals. Maybe I am too cynical and influenced by realpolitik, but I am afraid that real world politics works mostly according to interests (and power; rules are made according to these) rather than just morals (although these too are a factor when it comes to interests, as Machiavello said it is very important to hold the moral high ground). I find this approach unpleasant, but also think that it allows one to better understand how the world actually works, rather than how it should work (I am powerless to change the world, but at least I can try to understand it). Democracy is often used by western governments and groups as a very powerful emotional propaganda tool (for the first time AFIK, in the first world war against the kaiser). I remember when Iraq and Afghanistan were invaded in the name of democracy. The real motives were never stated in the open, they never are, what matters is to create a narrative that the masses will buy; it is only possible to understand what happens by taking a global view and considering multiple factors (of course I don't claim that I do really understand, I just mistrust whatever is claimed by the media of both sides and suspect the real motives are often hidden). Is my view destructive? What if allowing a referendum results in the collapse of Spanish cohesion, very likely. Wouldn't the resulting turmoil be more destructive that the status quo (which I admit is far from ideal, but IMHO the lesser evil)? This is what I mean by absolutes, I believe that one should approach complicated problems globally, rather than by optimizing for just for one local property, even if it's a noble one such as democracy or self-determination. Look at the Arab Spring, there are many lessons here. I like Bertrand Russell's take on liberalism: a difficult balance between maximizing personal freedom while preserving social cohesion.