Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[da_nang]

What is it about the law that is so paramount in this instance, da nang?

Laws aren't absolute infallible things, and they are even less so when it comes to things like borders and sovereignty.

Society exists because of the social contract, and in a free democratic country the social contract is represented by the law. Throw out the law, throw out the social contract, and all the rights and protections you had are gone.

Those human rights Puigdemont is clamoring about? What are human rights if they're not codified into law and enforced by the rule of law? They would just be a piece of paper.

You can't just throw out the law whenever it doesn't suit you. Not in a free and democratic country. All kinds of horrible shit can be justified by that.

-snip-

As I recall, Lenin had proclaimed the Declaration of the Rights of the Peoples of Russia and when Lenin came to power, that became the law of the land. Those rights included the right to full secession. Finland took use of this shortly after it was proclaimed and notified the Russian government of this in November, and made an official declaration a few weeks afterwards in December once they got their response.

[Reelya]

The point was that the crisis in Russia was what made it possible to even declare independence. If you didn't have that circumstance then it wouldn't have happened. Also note that the Soviets sent troops to back the "Red" faction in Finland, so if Imperial Germany hadn't intervened then you probably would have been over-run by the communists anyway. They didn't just sit back and merely let you become fully independent. They tried to install a communist puppet regime while giving lip service to independence.

The other point was that the guy who said you could have independence was himself a law-breaking coup-leader. There's nothing in this story to suggest that sticking to the "legal" avenue to seceding works. You needed a lawbreaker to completely overthrow the host nation to make this remotely possible to pull off.

The message from Finland is like "you too can peacefully secede if and only if someone else violently overthrows the nation you're trying to secede from".

The other main examples of "peaceful" secession are all in similar circumstances. e.g. Eritrea asked for independence after they and the Ethiopians overthrew a dictator in a civil war. As a result, everyone was heavily armed and mobilized. If the Ethiopians rebels had said "no" then they'd have another war, and they couldn't afford to do that before they consolidated their hold on power. So you had a similar circumstance there to Finland during the Russian Revolution - both involved a collapse of the central government that you were trying to secede from!

(BTW Lenin didn't actually control the entire nation of Russia at the time of the Finland decree, his followers held just a few cities. So Lenin didn't have any sort of viable territorial claims on Finland at all. He still needed to conquer most of Russia at that point, it just made sense to drop the claims on bits he didn't need. The nation that you were part of effectively ceased to exist after the coup).

[Egan_BW]

Law ≠ Social Contract. If everyone followed the law but ignored the contract things would still be pretty broken.

[Antioch]

My country would still have been part of Spain if we had followed the law......

[Loud Whispers]

Society exists because of the social contract, and in a free democratic country the social contract is represented by the law. Throw out the law, throw out the social contract, and all the rights and protections you had are gone.

Those human rights Puigdemont is clamoring about? What are human rights if they're not codified into law and enforced by the rule of law? They would just be a piece of paper.

You can't just throw out the law whenever it doesn't suit you. Not in a free and democratic country. All kinds of horrible shit can be justified by that.

You've got to factor in people's willingness to be governed alongside rule of law. UK learned in Ireland that attempting to enforce the law upon people who do not want those laws or your authority is not only going to end in failure, it has a high likelihood of causing tremendous harm for all involved. This is because law has 3 important components in civil society; justice, enforcement & compliance. Justice forms the system, enforcement provides law with force, yet if the people you intend to have follow this law do not want it, then you must sit down and talk with them about it. One of the most valuable tools a democracy has is that its laws can change. There is no need to continue enforcing laws that are not working for your people's benefit. If you cannot convince a people of the merit of your laws, nor can you change them to better fit your people, then this will increase civil discontent and lead to potential rebellion. Should that event occur, force will be hard pressed to solve anything, and negotiations that should have started earlier will be forced in an environment far less amicable to resolution. Whether this will ultimately be solved with the pen or sword, it will not be possible for Madrid to keep Spain united without winning the hearts and minds of all its citizenry. Speaking as one who has had multiple independence referendums and is sick to death of them, and will likely continue dealing with them, even a neverendum referendum bonanza is preferable to a country turning hostile upon itself

[da_nang]

One of the most valuable tools a democracy has is that its laws can change.

Which Spain has. It may be difficult, but the tools are there.

You've got to factor in people's willingness to be governed alongside rule of law.

Fine, I'll play along. So let's say you have a band of followers, a hundred or so, on a ranch. They've declared that they are not willing to follow the laws of the state. They refuse to pay taxes.

The state sends the tax man to collect taxes, but the band refuses to give the tax man entrance.

The tax man calls for the police to arrest them on account of tax evasion.

The band now decides to shoot the police for trying to enforce the "oppressive" law of the state. Police officers die.

Reinforcement is called in, and now there's a standoff.

Should the law be abandoned, or not? The band of followers are people, no? So they have a right to choose?

At a larger scale, this would be civil war. It's a breakdown of law and civil society.

Realistically and historically, whoever wins decides the outcome.

[martinuzz]

Don't compare peaceful protestors to trigger happy redneck ranchers.

[da_nang]

Peacefulness has nothing to do with it.

You either follow the law of the state or the law of the jungle. That's the reality we live in.

If you manage to overthrow the law of the state with the law of the jungle, then fine. Fait accompli, might is right or whatnot.

The Catalans can either follow the law of the state and try to have the constitution amended, or they can follow the law of the jungle and see where that leads.

Only one of them guarantees their rights and protection, however, but that's their choice.

[Loud Whispers]

Which Spain has. It may be difficult, but the tools are there.

Undeniable, but whether the tools are used is another question

Fine, I'll play along.

Don't think I'm rusing you, I can sympathize with the fear of having your country carved apart, and hope Spain retains her unity - but I fear her current course of action does not follow the road she believes she is on

So let's say you have a band of followers, a hundred or so, on a ranch. They've declared that they are not willing to follow the laws of the state. They refuse to pay taxes.
The state sends the tax man to collect taxes, but the band refuses to give the tax man entrance.
The tax man calls for the police to arrest them on account of tax evasion.
The band now decides to shoot the police for trying to enforce the "oppressive" law of the state. Police officers die.
Reinforcement is called in, and now there's a standoff.
Should the law be abandoned, or not? The band of followers are people, no? So they have a right to choose?

What is clear is that in your example is that by refusing to negotiate with your citizens you have placed them on a warpath with your armed forces and many will die as a result. To talk is not abandoning rule of law, to enforce rule of law under such severe conditions does not cow people into paying taxes and obeying central government, it incentivizes outright rebellion. Reminds me of a general in Imperial China's legalist phase, wherein he was late for a deployment and asked his adjutant what the penalty for being late was. The answer was death. He asked his adjutant what the penalty for rebellion was. The answer was death.

Consider a real world comparison, one almost identical to your scenario in the Clive Bundy ranch standoff. Tax man shows up, gets shooed away. Tax man calls in reinforcement, citizen calls in his own reinforcement, standoff results in lots of guns pointing at one another - so they talk, negotiate and defuse the situation. Eventually the police go home, the militia go home, everyone calms down, and 3 years later the man who didn't pay his taxes is arrested at an airport.
If they had resorted to violence in order to enforce the law, what they would have done is ensure law broke down. Armed conflict between citizenry and state renders the rule of law impossible, not permissible.

At a larger scale, this would be civil war. It's a breakdown of law and civil society.
Realistically and historically, whoever wins decides the outcome.

By violently enforcing the law instead of talking to your citizenry, you do not avoid civil war, you ensure it. On a larger scale it will be worse for Spain than the breakdown of law and civil society, the Catalonians will be forced to either submit to the Madrid government or create their own parallel authority, law court, law enforcement, military force and civil service. All of this makes their independence much surer, especially as violent repression will turn people away - Catalonian Terry sitting on the fence of whether to pursue independence or remain in Spain looking at Spanish soldiers beating up Catalonian friends is going to think independence is a lot better than this.

Don't compare peaceful protestors to trigger happy redneck ranchers.

pls no bully amerifreedoms

[scriver]

One of the most valuable tools a democracy has is that its laws can change.

Which Spain has. It may be difficult, but the tools are there.

You've got to factor in people's willingness to be governed alongside rule of law.

Fine, I'll play along. So let's say you have a band of followers, a hundred or so, on a ranch. They've declared that they are not willing to follow the laws of the state. They refuse to pay taxes.

The state sends the tax man to collect taxes, but the band refuses to give the tax man entrance.

The tax man calls for the police to arrest them on account of tax evasion.

The band now decides to shoot the police for trying to enforce the "oppressive" law of the state. Police officers die.

Reinforcement is called in, and now there's a standoff.

Should the law be abandoned, or not? The band of followers are people, no? So they have a right to choose?

At a larger scale, this would be civil war. It's a breakdown of law and civil society.

Realistically and historically, whoever wins decides the outcome.

A handful of people are not a nation.

[martinuzz]

Peacefulness has nothing to do with it.

You either follow the law of the state or the law of the jungle. That's the reality we live in.

If you manage to overthrow the law of the state with the law of the jungle, then fine. Fait accompli, might is right or whatnot.

The Catalans can either follow the law of the state and try to have the constitution amended, or they can follow the law of the jungle and see where that leads.

Only one of them guarantees their rights and protection, however, but that's their choice.

If you call voting (regardless of validity), and peaceful protest 'law of the jungle', then you have not understood how democracy functions. Freedom of conscience and civil disobedience are both parts of the democratic social contract. You just don't send armed forces against your population like that, even if they only use non-lethal violence. Which is debatable in the case of rubber bullets.

It's not like the people were going about murdering and plundering, they were just trying to express their opinion (by voting), and non-violently blocking locations. Violently oppressing that instead of just letting it (the voting) happen and taking the ball back to the political arena afterwards is the opposite of democracy.
Rajoy messed up big time here.

Not saying that I agree with Puigdemont unilaterally wanting to declare independence, nor do I like to see Spain fall apart. But if it does do that now, that's on Rajoy for being bullheaded and acting like a maniac.

[da_nang]

A handful of people are not a nation.

The statement used the word people, not nation.

they were just trying to express their opinion (by voting)

They were voting in a referendum made legally binding by Puigdemont and the Catalan government, as given by the Catalans' referendum bill (struck down by the national supreme court but Puigdemont et al. disregarded the verdict anyways), to commit something that was illegal.

Can I have a legally binding referendum to commit theft? Not to change the law against theft, but to actually break it?

EDIT: In other news, the EU Commission has released a statement.

[scriver]

A handful of people are not a nation.

The statement used the word people, not nation.

A people = A nation. They are synonyms. And regardless, a handful of people are not a people.


they were just trying to express their opinion (by voting)
[/quote]
They were voting in a referendum made legally binding by Puigdemont and the Catalan government, as given by the Catalans' referendum bill (struck down by the national supreme court but Puigdemont et al. disregarded the verdict anyways), to commit something that was illegal.

Can I have a legally binding referendum to commit theft? Not to change the law against theft, but to actually break it?

EDIT: [url=http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_STATEMENT-17-3626_en.htm]In other news, the EU Commission has released a statement.]

they were just trying to express their opinion (by voting)

They were voting in a referendum made legally binding by Puigdemont and the Catalan government, as given by the Catalans' referendum bill (struck down by the national supreme court but Puigdemont et al. disregarded the verdict anyways), to commit something that was illegal.

Can I have a legally binding referendum to commit theft? Not to change the law against theft, but to actually break it?

EDIT: In other news, the EU Commission has released a statement.
[/url]

Apples and oranges. Declaring independence is not comparable to theft.

[Teneb]

Peacefulness has nothing to do with it.

You either follow the law of the state or the law of the jungle. That's the reality we live in.

If you manage to overthrow the law of the state with the law of the jungle, then fine. Fait accompli, might is right or whatnot.

The Catalans can either follow the law of the state and try to have the constitution amended, or they can follow the law of the jungle and see where that leads.

Only one of them guarantees their rights and protection, however, but that's their choice.

Okay, slow down a bit. The absence of law doesn't mean I'm going to grab the nearest blunt object and go to town on my neighbour. The absence of law is just that. Absence. It doesn't automatically turn people into savage beasts who will kill each other for the latest dank memes.

Law isn't the sole "civilizatory" force in the world. It doesn't magically make people not be total assholes towards each other.

[hector13]

they were just trying to express their opinion (by voting)

They were voting in a referendum made legally binding by Puigdemont and the Catalan government, as given by the Catalans' referendum bill (struck down by the national supreme court but Puigdemont et al. disregarded the verdict anyways), to commit something that was illegal.

Can I have a legally binding referendum to commit theft? Not to change the law against theft, but to actually break it?

EDIT: In other news, the EU Commission has released a statement.

That comes down to the rule of law thing again; Puigdemont as a regional politician has no actual power beyond his natural charm and charisma to make it legally binding, particularly since the Constitutional Court in Spain said it wasn't.

This essentially made it an unofficial government poll. Madrid could easily let it go ahead have and ignored the result, then prosecuted Puigdemont et al like they did to Arthur Mas after 2014.