Hacker News Reader

Comment by polack | Hacker News Reader

> 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...

View on HN

> 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.

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_...

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

Thank you.

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).

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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com