Comment by argonaut | Hacker News Reader

Comment by argonaut | Hacker News Reader

I thought this analysis article was really thought-provoking and now I have uncertain and mixed feelings about the referendum: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/29/world/europe/independence....

Basically, when it comes to things like this there's a conflict between two international ideals: integrity of national borders and human rights. And there are some thought provoking ideas in the article. If you think about it, if all of Spain voted in this referendum (since this would affect the resources and borders of the entire nation), what would the result be? There are obviously major and critical differences, but if you look at another issue, Crimea, most people there would actually rather be with Russia. But obviously the rest of Ukraine didn't agree with that. And Crimea actually tried to hold referendums in the past that were blocked by the national government. The "referendum" that Crimea ended up holding (to legitimize the annexation) was declared illegal by the UN, but that's exactly what Spain's constitutional court did in the Catalan referendum.

Very complex issue and not as cut and dry as I had thought it to be.

In a divorce, you don't require that all parties agree that divorcing is the right decision. If a single party wants to dissolve the relationship, that is sufficient.

There's more nuance when we're talking about entire states, but I believe the same principle should apply. This particular vote was irregular enough to not really be legitimate, but the Spanish government should recognize that some sort of Catalan referendum has a right to take place.

> If a single party wants to dissolve the relationship, that is sufficient.

Interestingly enough you will find that this is not the case in all jurisdictions.

That may work between two people, but not for a large enough group. For example, if a group of people owned a large enough amount of land to be self sufficient, should they be able to separate their land from their country? Even if it is a few dozen people, and a few square miles?

But if you are the wealthier party, you will be required to pay support...

The problem with easy non-mutual dissolution is that a party with a temporary advantage can transform it into a long term gain at the other party's expense.

I don't think it's appropriate to ask the citizens of the rest of the country if they support the secession. To create a simple analogy lets say you have a group of five people. One is a captive and four are the captors. Is it appropriate to have a referendum with all five people to vote on if the captive is allow to go free? No the four captors are always going to vote no. The captive has to escape without the support of the captors.

I'm sure if you went to any prison and polled the inmates, you'd find quite a bit of support for the inmate's freedom.

Without taking a position on Catalonia, I think one has to analyze the reasons they want to hold the referendum and decide if you find them compelling. When the USA seceded from the UK, the Declaration of Independence provided a reasonable list of reasons. By contrast, the main reason the CSA seceded from the USA - slavery - prevented their cause from being legitimate.

But you are not polling inmates, you are effectively polling wardens. How many wardens will poll to release the inmate their own jobs depend on? None.

Independentism is always a thorny subject, because most justification ends up being defined ex post. It’s like “resistance” movements against lawful but tyrannical governments: if they succeed they will be freedom fighters, if they fail they’ll be brigands and terrorists. Usually the threshold for legitimacy is overwhelming support from the population, something that happens sporadically (it happened in Slovakia, Slovenia, Croatia, Kossovo, almost in Scotland, and of course in post-soviet republics all over the old federation). But once popular support is somehow made manifest, then the Wilson doctrine must be allowed to set the agenda.

I think there's a good heuristic here: Would the reasons justify invading a country, if it had never been a part of "your" country?

Invading a country to abolish slavery is morally justifiable, invading a country because you want to tax them isn't.

The whole idea of a democracy is that the majority wins (which is why we need liberalism to offer protection for the minority). Every minority is a majority of itself.

This is one reason why trying to deal with secessionists in a democracy is so difficult (see also Canada, and Ireland).

Perhaps that's a point of failure in democracies as we have seen them implemented, in that a large group of people are sometimes beholden to a larger group of people with whom they don't identify.

Lately, I have the feeling that all this growing nationalism in the world will take care of itself within a decade or so. The logical end to having pride in your (ethnic or geographical) subgroup isn't a few hundred happy nations living separately in harmony. It's war :(

I tend to agree. But I do see a problem with political systems such as the one in the US that allows injustices like slavery or racial segregation to go on as long as they did. there is a real issue with minority groups being disenfranchised by representative democracy.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_v._White

When, therefore, Texas became one of the United States, she entered into an indissoluble relation. All the obligations of perpetual union, and all the guaranties of republican government in the Union, attached at once to the State. The act which consummated her admission into the Union was something more than a compact; it was the incorporation of a new member into the political body. And it was final.

Similarly, Catalonians and the rest of Spaniards approved their Constitution in 1978, which states that matters like this shall be voted in national referendum, once approved by congress.

There's no need to argue via analogy.

Who gets to decide if the Principality of Hutt River (75 square kilometers, so larger than San Marino) can secede from Australia?

Only those who live there? Or can other Australians be involved?

This to me is essentially eternal political debate between the collective vs. the individual. Do we "put down" the individual in order to promote the well-being of the collective (read tyrannical majority rule) or do we value the rights of the individual regardless of they impact the collective? I am personally on the side of the latter.

Secession is by definition a break out from the collective. So considering what the collective wants seems to me like asking the majority to vote for their tyrannical interest (very biased way of doing things).

Integrity of national borders against infringement from outside is good because it prevents aggression. Separation within the borders can be violent or not; for instance, separation between Czech Republic and Slovakia was a slow and entirely peaceful process. Most of the time, though, there is a significant faction that does not want to let go of a part of "our land", even if they have no ties to it and never even visited it.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com