Hacker News Reader

Comment by Aaargh20318 | Hacker News Reader

Aaargh20318

> The ref is illegal. The hypothetical declaration of independence is illegal

How can they be illegal ?

A democratic government derives it's legitimacy from the fact the people they govern choose to be governed by them. If the people obviously do not want this government, then isn't it the government that's obviously illegitimate ?

'The people' are the source of power, they just outsource it to a smaller group of people through democratic elections for practical purposes. If 'the people' decide their government's services are no longer needed, then there is nothing the government can do. It's not their call.

View on HN

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.

> 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.

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.

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.

>If a group of people doesn't want to be governed by a certain body they should have the right to secede.

If you follow this principle to the extreme then laws become essentially voluntary, which contradicts the whole meaning of law.

I think democratic principles can never be applicable to decisions about the existence of the entity as a whole in the same way they apply to governing an existing entity.

You declare "there is no flaw" and then you proceed to describe it in detail.

Surely you can see the flaw in this new line of reasoning as well?

Sorry, but "Surely you can see the flaw" is not meaningful contribution to the discussion. It's just a passive aggressive way of saying "you are wrong so please think until you realize the superiority of my opinion".

There is two simple truths. 1. If a group decides that it doesn't want to be ruled by a certain body, it's hard to legitimize the continuation of that rule. 2. If any group, especially very small ones can refuse the ruling body, all big groups will ultimately split down to individuals with no rules at all.

Democracy only works when balancing these truths. Trough opposition in parliament, minority rights, local and regional governments, regional independence and so on.

I.e. the whole situation in Catalan is blowing up because the reginal independence wasn't granted (or not enough in the opinion of the Catalans). Look at South-Tyrol in Italy for an example where things are working better. Even the American states are a good example - liberal, rich California wouldn't accept Republican rule without the independence the states have.

Surely you can see the point I'm trying to make?

The phrase you object to is an invitation to consider the points which were raised in the paragraph just above. I think a reasonable person can immediately see the error.

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.

What's wrong with a city-state? We still have a few left from the old time!

It's weird that everyone wants a large monopoly not a lot of smaller competing governments.

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".

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?

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.

> 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.

>> 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.

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?

Yeah, I'd say let's allow UK to crash and burn in Brexit, so people have cautionary tale and educate themselves better next time they make such a big decision.

It sounds mean, but as you are saying - we have to allow that at least sometimes, so people are ok with listening to more educated people next time. Because when even such fragmented group as economists agreed universally that Brexit is bad, it just is bad, and people should accept it.

In 1945 there were 51 members of the United Nations. There are now 193. What's the problem?

This is what the Confederate States of America did.

That line of thinking is very unpopular, at least in the US since that time.

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.

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...

[2] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_secession_movements

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.

>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

> 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.

> A democratic government derives it's legitimacy from the fact the people they govern choose to be governed by them. If the people obviously do not want this government, then isn't it the government that's obviously illegitimate ?

Spain has chosen to be governed by the current government. Democracy doesn't mean that you always get the way you want if the majority wants something else...

> Spain has chosen to be governed by the current government.

Did they now ?

Let's say Russia is having an election and the people in Crimea are allowed to vote. Let's assume the majority of Russians voted for Putin but hardly any of the people in Crimea did. Did Russia suddenly become the legitimate government of Crimea just because 'the people voted for it' ?

I think the first step would be for the people to agree to have an election over who governs them first.

AFAIK Catalonia didn't voluntarily join Spain, they got annexed.

> Catalonia didn't voluntarily join Spain, they got annexed.

This is how most countries were formed in the Middle Ages. You either are big enough to defend yourself or become a part of big enough country.

A lot of bad shit happened in the Dark Ages, that's why they are called the Dark Ages. Doesn't mean we shouldn't correct them now we know better.

If you allow anyone to declare independence then Europe might split back apart into hundreds of small provinces. For example, there were times when major Greek and Italian cities were independent states, what if they will want to return back to that time? In this case an external enemy will conquer those small states one by one like Pacman eats dots.

Why do you think a military alliance requires a political one? They can join e.g. NATO if they are afraid of Russia.

They will not be able to meaningfully contribute to such military alliance - every state having single fighter jet? Or a few tanks?

And if they pool money to form an army - how will be the funding determined? Some states will want more defence, some less, some will prefer naval power, some airpower . . .

if those people can't agree on anything to such extent that they want to be entirely separate, how would they agree on anything when they would have even less incentive to cooperate? See how dysfunctional EU seems at times today, and this would be way worse . . .

Especially when you start considering other forms of warfare, like trade. Solving all problems leads right back to something resembling either superstate or close coalition of large states.

They will cooperate if they have a threat of invasion, they won't cooperate to have a large standing army - and that is a good outcome. For example see mutual defence of Switzerland cantons before federal state.

How will they contribute to NATO then? Your point was that they don't need political alliance to be in a military one, my point is that this is practically impossible.

Also good luck with making an army from nothing just in time before invasion.

Edit: and you are still ignoring weakness of such states on economic level.

History shows it was possible in cantons of Switzerland, Habsburgs couldn't conquer them, despite no federal authority. There are still examples of small countries in military alliances today - I don't see what is the problem with contributing.

Economics is not a problem in a modern world with a free trade. Small city-states, that embrace free trade, fare well. There is even an possibility, that trade liberalization leads to political disintegration: https://www.nber.org/papers/w6163

Imo Switzerland is poor example and free trade cannot be guaranteed for small states in today's world but I guess we will not convince each other in this limited debate . .. Let's agree to disagree.

> Spain has chosen to be governed by the current government.

I mean, sort of yes, but also Catalonia was annexed within living memory.

What annexation are you talking about? As far as I can tell, Catalonia lost it's independence with the Nueva Planta decrees in 1716 [0], which is far from "within living memory".

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nueva_Planta_decrees

Oh please.

Just because it happened a few hundred years ago, doesnt mean they lost their own heritage, their language, and their self-determination.

Look no further than Ireland. That battle goes back to Grace O'Malley and Elizabeth in the 16th'c. In reality, it went further back, to this structure called the Hadrian Wall, but that's in 1st c.

"Living memory" indeed.

If you believe that lie, I can't help you.

I think you can assume goodwill here. If OP is mistaken, clue them in. Reputable sources of info on the history of Catalonia are plentiful, whether online or in the library. In this case, OP is probably referring to the Spanish Civil War, which indeed happened within living memory and prior to which Catalonia was autonomous under the Second Spanish Republic:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Catalonia#Republic_...

It's true, Catalonia already proclaimed its independence on the evening of October 6th 1934 (it only lasted until the early morning of October 7th 1934, though).

> I think you can assume goodwill here. If OP is mistaken, clue them in.

Thank you.

The question that clarifies the matter is not whether something is illegal. You can craft language to make lots of things illegal, especially within a hierarchy of national and regional governments. The question is whether voting for independence is a crime. When you have to make voting a crime, and deploy police to prevent the population turning out to vote, it's a pretty good indicator you are on the wrong side of history.

This is probably not the the way the national government wanted their actions to be seen, nor is overwhelming popular disobedience the outcome they desired.

The people of the democratic government democratically voted for the part of the Spanish Constitution that bars this kind of unilateral declaration of independence.

States in spain are incapable of declaring independence from the national government. This was a democratic process. A democratic process inside one state, just to get that state to say it is separate, doesn't change that.

So the parent's question still standards. If the referendum is illegal, why does the national government bother at all? It can ignore the referendum.

> The people of the democratic government democratically voted for the part of the Spanish Constitution that bars this kind of unilateral declaration of independence.

Are you sure the same people who voted for that constitution are the ones doing the protesting ? I'm not sure about Spain, but I know for a fact that I didn't vote for the constitution of my country, in fact it was written about 160 years before I was even born.

From what I recall, the thing making this referendum illegal something from the 1970s....

Not sure if that changes your opinion

and it also doesn't answer the question of why the national government is bothering anyway

Are you arguing that you are not bound by any laws enacted before you could vote?

No, I'm arguing that I should have a choice wether to be a member of a society and as a result get all the benefits thereof and be subject to that society's laws, or not.

It's a package deal. I either join the club, benefit from being a member, and have to play by the clubs rules or I don't.

The sovereignty of Spain falls on all Spanish citizens.

If you allow a referendum on such topic in a part of Spain, it doesn't matter the result because you're accepting implicitly that a part of Spain can rule over the whole.

> If you allow a referendum on such topic in a part of Spain, it doesn't matter the result because you're accepting implicitly that a part of Spain can rule over the whole

Let's boil it down to the basics: an election decides who is going to be leader of a group of people. For that leader to be legitimate every member has to voluntarily decide they want to be part of the group and thus the election.

The problem here is not that Catalonia doesn't accept the government because they didn't like who won the elections. The problem here is that they never agreed to even be part of those elections.

If we have a group of 10 people who decide to democratically pick a leader, and the majority chooses Steve. That's fine. What is not fine is taking 2 random people of the street and tell them they have to now do what Steve tells them because he was voted leader 10 against 2. They never agreed to take part in the election and respect its results.

And yet I don't see any way this can work without the 'tyranny of the majority', as long as we consider things like private property a thing.

So ten people decide to bow at Steve's now-royal feet. His rule involves property. The two who didn't vote for him might be living within the boundaries of that property. Or it might not be economically feasible for them to survive without entering Steve's kingdom. And unfortunately all the other land is rules by Dave and Jared, who would require their submission just as much as Steve.

I just don't see a practical way, within the framework of (pretty much?) then entire world at this point, where it is possible to not agree to take part in an election, and to realistically disrespect its results.

Catalonia and the real world is more complicated, so perhaps there is a future where Catalonia succeeds at seceding. Personally I'm not as much against that as most people seem to be.

But I guess I'm just pointing out that there's no simple anything that this situation can be reduced to.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com