4 ms·

It is unfortunate that the institutions with the greatest power and influence over our lives are the hardest to reform, and, by dint of their monopoly on force,

It is unfortunate that the institutions with the greatest power and influence over our lives are the hardest to reform, and, by dint of their monopoly on force, nearly impossible to replace. See the bid for Catalan independence in 2017. If human beings don't have a right to start a new government, then they effectively do not have a right to self-representstion. If Catalan doesn't want to part of Spain, but they're forced to remain (the politicians who declared independence in 2017 are either in jail or in exile), the fact that they have a 16% say in how Spain is run is not democracy. After all, that means the Spaniards have an 84% say in how this captive region is run. That's just imperialism with extra steps.

antr 6y ago
The 2017 event in Catalonia was a slow-motion, low-cost coup d’etat, dressed as a democratic movement, and an event the European Union already warned was illegal. The result is that second-tier Catalan politicians and activists are now in jail.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- overkalix 6y ago
  The fact that something is illegal doesn't really address the issue of renewing/maintaining the legitimacy of a social organization. If anything saying that something is illegitimate or unjust because it is illegal suggests that one benefits from the status quo.
  - antr 6y ago
    What's your point? If you want the laws changed, vote for a party that legitimately changes the law through the defined channels (congress, senate, etc). However, if you break the law, be prepared to suffer the consequences.
    - laurencerowe 6y ago
      That doesn't really work in this case though. A majority in the Catalan parliament voted for the independence referendum but it was disallowed by Spanish law. Support for Catalan independence is necessarily going to be of limited interest to voters outside of Catalonia, so changing the law at the Spanish level isn't something Catalan's can really hope to achieve.
      - antr 6y ago
        Your "Texas vs. Federal Government" argument is weak: 1. The local Catalan parliament is not above any national law. Your argument reminds me of the Texas Government vs any US Govt. 2. The pro-independence seats in parliament in Catalonia is a voter minority... in Catalonia. Check your math.
        laurencerowe 6y ago
        Most secessions are illegal, the US from Britain, Texas and California from Mexico. I personally don’t see anything wrong with Texas becoming independent from the US should it choose to. (Confederate secession was wrong because it was about perpetuating slavery.) The referendum law was passed by a majority of members of the Catalan parliament. It just seems very odd that Spain would not work on a mutually acceptable structure for an independence vote. Especially if a majority of people would vote against it!
        ThePowerOfFuet 6y ago
        >The pro-independence seats in parliament in Catalonia is a voter minority... in Catalonia. Check your math. [citation needed]
    - overkalix 6y ago
      Laws and their use are not inherently just, legitimate, necessary, effective or reflective of society. Often laws provide advantges to segments of society at a cost for other segments. In that case we must evaluate whether the law is just or necessary. If the segment of society that benefits unnecessarily or unjustly from the law refuses to be held accountable, then civil disobedience by the affected segment is to be expected. There are countless instances of social and legal change achieved through disobedience instead of "following the law".
Jeema101 6y ago
It's not quite so black and white, though, because if you say that people have the unlimited right to form their own country, then where does that right end? Does a city, or a small group of people, or a single person have the right to declare themselves an independent country? What about when the cause itself is ambiguous or outright unjust (i.e. the South in the American Civil War)? That's why I think the cause itself and the claimed grievances have to be considered and are the most important part of the discussion.

antr 6y ago

The 2017 event in Catalonia was a slow-motion, low-cost coup d’etat, dressed as a democratic movement, and an event the European Union already warned was illegal. The result is that second-tier Catalan politicians and activists are now in jail.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
overkalix 6y ago
The fact that something is illegal doesn't really address the issue of renewing/maintaining the legitimacy of a social organization. If anything saying that something is illegitimate or unjust because it is illegal suggests that one benefits from the status quo.
- antr 6y ago
  What's your point? If you want the laws changed, vote for a party that legitimately changes the law through the defined channels (congress, senate, etc). However, if you break the law, be prepared to suffer the consequences.
  - laurencerowe 6y ago
    That doesn't really work in this case though. A majority in the Catalan parliament voted for the independence referendum but it was disallowed by Spanish law. Support for Catalan independence is necessarily going to be of limited interest to voters outside of Catalonia, so changing the law at the Spanish level isn't something Catalan's can really hope to achieve.
    - antr 6y ago
      Your "Texas vs. Federal Government" argument is weak: 1. The local Catalan parliament is not above any national law. Your argument reminds me of the Texas Government vs any US Govt. 2. The pro-independence seats in parliament in Catalonia is a voter minority... in Catalonia. Check your math.
      - laurencerowe 6y ago
        Most secessions are illegal, the US from Britain, Texas and California from Mexico. I personally don’t see anything wrong with Texas becoming independent from the US should it choose to. (Confederate secession was wrong because it was about perpetuating slavery.) The referendum law was passed by a majority of members of the Catalan parliament. It just seems very odd that Spain would not work on a mutually acceptable structure for an independence vote. Especially if a majority of people would vote against it!
      - ThePowerOfFuet 6y ago
        >The pro-independence seats in parliament in Catalonia is a voter minority... in Catalonia. Check your math. [citation needed]
  - overkalix 6y ago
    Laws and their use are not inherently just, legitimate, necessary, effective or reflective of society. Often laws provide advantges to segments of society at a cost for other segments. In that case we must evaluate whether the law is just or necessary. If the segment of society that benefits unnecessarily or unjustly from the law refuses to be held accountable, then civil disobedience by the affected segment is to be expected. There are countless instances of social and legal change achieved through disobedience instead of "following the law".

Jeema101 6y ago

It's not quite so black and white, though, because if you say that people have the unlimited right to form their own country, then where does that right end? Does a city, or a small group of people, or a single person have the right to declare themselves an independent country? What about when the cause itself is ambiguous or outright unjust (i.e. the South in the American Civil War)? That's why I think the cause itself and the claimed grievances have to be considered and are the most important part of the discussion.