Hacker News Reader

Comment by rbanffy | Hacker News Reader

Democracy requires the rule of law. The law says the vote should not take place, therefore either the vote doesn't take place or the law (the constitution, in this case) is changed.

Politics is the art of the possible. Right now, this is not possible and pushing for it is not constructive.

View on HN

If a supposedly democratic nation banned free speech, then I would proudly break the law.

If a sufficient number of people in a geopolitical area wish to govern themselves, broadly, it should be seriously considered by any ethical government.

Like in the case of the Islamic State, for example? Hemmm...not.

Like Catalonia, Britain, Scotland, South Sudan, the United States, or India?

The circumstances matter. I can't draft a workflow for "ethical independence" on a Friday morning on HN. I can say there is a difference between self-determination and the desire for liberty vs. mass murder, conquering territory and waging guerrilla warfare against multiple nations.

The Spanish constitution is violating one of the basic rights: the right of self-determination. To me, right now, it doesn't matter what the constitution says. We will ignore it. The constitution won't be changed because it's in their interest to not change.

Basic right for whom? Are you talking basic human right? A random bunch of people right? Who?

When defining a right, you must show who is the subject of that right.

I'm not completely sure what you are trying to say, but this is what I'm referring to: http://www.unpo.org/article/4957

That's not an impartial source.

Anyway, when that site states "All peoples have the right to self-determination" Is there a minimum number of people to aim for 'this right'? V.g. if 259 persons in Els Hostalets de Balenya say the want 'the right to self-determination', are they a nation from then?

I answered this same question in another comment. Copy pasting:

As to when you stop with the right of self-determination, in the case of Catalonia, from a cultural, language, and historical point of view, there's enough reasons for a referendum to be held (given the discontent of the population). There's a similar situation with Quebec, for example. As far as I know, there's nothing about New York --language, history, or culture-- that would warrant a referendum, and there's certainly no reason for you as an individual to do so (you don't even have the basic political institutions).

Responding a copypasta with another copypasta:

The so-called "right to self-determination" doesn't exist in the Spanish Constitution, nor in the International Law, nor in Comparative Law.

https://elpais.com/elpais/2014/10/10/opinion/1412946101_9911...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com