Hacker News Reader

Comment by overkalix | Hacker News Reader

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.

View on HN

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.

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.

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.

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!

>The pro-independence seats in parliament in Catalonia is a voter minority... in Catalonia. Check your math.

[citation needed]

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".

Said the the tax evader.

"In that case we must evaluate whether the law is just or necessary"

It is a common view that a degree of redistribution is necessary and desirable, and the social benefits are rather clear.

Even then, there are some spectacular failures at penalizing tax evasion. There are known loopholes in the Spanish and EU tax system that remain unclosed because...? Also, for comparison I'd like to point out that the fiscal amnesty enacted by the Popular Party in 2012 was evidently unconstitutional, but somehow it was not until 2017 that the Constitutional Court settled the issue. It took this court about two hours to reach a conclusion regarding Catalan independence laws.

So if the goal is to have a progressive tax system, but political parties and the courts fail at even following the current laws, what should a reformer aim at? We've seen multiple leaks about tax evaders (Falcianni, Panama papers). The information contained in those leaks was illegally obtained. Does that mean they were also unjust and illegitimate, and therefore disregarded or condemned?

Not sure how these facts fit in your legalist perspective, and I don't understand the insistence in equating legality with justice, unless, as I said, one is benefiting economically and culturally from unjust laws, but doesn't want to feel like the bad guy. "Are we the baddies?"

You tell me how those who do not want independence "benefits unnecessarily" from such. Curious to know what civil liberties those who seek independence are being taken away from them.

> vote for a party that legitimately changes the law through the defined channels

So what if no party is willing to do that? Gay marriage in many Western countries has consistently had over 50% support going back a long time[0], despite overwhelming polling, no elected governments on Earth were willing to change it except in the last few years. This is the same for other issues like marijuana decriminalisation. By your measure of legitimate change: Who does an American vote for to stop the 20 year war in Afghanistan? [1]

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage#Public_opini...

[1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/01/05/this-rece...

I'm failing to see how those genuine matters relate to a coup perpetrated by a minority of (privileged) citizens.

Didnt they vote via ipfs for succession? that is not a coup

I'm afraid that what you call "vote" was a staged and manipulated process, without a voter census, and no oversight by any Election Authority.

This is the point, it was staged as a democratic event, but it was quite the contrary.

Home, no t'has viscut mai à Catalunya. Per què difoneu aquestes mentides?

You've clearly never lived in Catalonia. Why are you spreading such bullshit?

Indeed, the Catalan referendum was fake.

Among the main irregular procedures include:

  1. there are opaque ballot boxes,
  2. there are no official ballots or envelopes, 
  3. the electoral census is hosted on online servers, 
  4. there is no electoral board, and
  5. there is no counting system.

Definition of coup.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com