[Non-US] News That Makes You laugh/cry/neither...

[Stahlseele]

The question is:
is this preferable to them seceding and spain drifting off into straight up civil war with military action?
Because that is what can happen when a small part of a country tries to tell the bigger part of the country to fuck off and let it do its own thing.

[Chamomile]

words

What I get from this is that you didn't actually read past the first sentence I wrote, since my response to everything you wrote is just all the rest of the post that you quoted a fragment of. Try again.

[Username17]

words

What I get from this is that you didn't actually read past the first sentence I wrote, since my response to everything you wrote is just all the rest of the post that you quoted a fragment of. Try again.

Rebellion is not a crime, it's war. Refusal to accept the rule of law is not the same thing as breaking a law. We submit to punishments levied under law because to do otherwise we would have to go into revolt. The response to revolt is deadly force, because it's war.

The Catalonian regional legislature is not breaking laws, they are in open rebellion. The difference is large and important.

Remember: we don't support the death penalty because it is not effective. It's not effective in large part because it waters down the threat of lethal force against rebels that is required for nation states to exist.

-Username17

[Lago PARANOIA]

What do you think of the idea that the Catalonian regional legislature intentionally scheduled the independence vote shortly before the scheduled general strike in order to conflate the two issues in the public's minds?

[nockermensch]

I terribly wary of this independence movement because TV Globo covered the separatists in a positive light and, in the immortal words of populist politician Leonel Brizola: "When you are in doubt about what position to take on any issue, a good rule of thumb is: If Globo Network is for it, be against it. If they are against it, be for it."

In longer form, Catalunia seems to be a richer region that thinks they'll be better if they're not paying for their relatively poorer neighbors. In other words, the same kind of shit that I have to listen here about how São Paulo should secede, and the same kind of egoistic thinking that is the lynchpin of Republican attacks on healthcare: Why should the wealthy pay for the sick? (it's because this is called "Civilization" and the alternative is called "Savagery" and we got over that stage some thousands of years ago, thank you for asking)

In even longer form, a movement like this has no chance to accomplish anything, because an independent Catalunia would have to be accepted by a lot of UE countries that would have all reasons in the world to fear that their own richest provinces would then secede too. In other words, Catalunia's best case scenario is they becoming an isolated State, with punishing border taxes ruining everything for everybody. In other words, this movement seems to be nothing more than nation-wrecking for the lulzprofit, the same kind of stuff we've seen happening in Ucraine, Lybia, Syria, Brazil, etc.

Also, welcome back, Lago.

[Username17]

What do you think of the idea that the Catalonian regional legislature intentionally scheduled the independence vote shortly before the scheduled general strike in order to conflate the two issues in the public's minds?

I would be very surprised if that wasn't one of the factors that went in to it. Of course, there are enough good and bad news things that various people expected to happen that went in to deciding on the timing, that I would be even more surprised if that was even a majority of the reasoning.

I terribly wary of this independence movement because TV Globo covered the separatists in a positive light and, in the immortal words of populist politician Leonel Brizola: "When you are in doubt about what position to take on any issue, a good rule of thumb is: If Globo Network is for it, be against it. If they are against it, be for it."

On a similar note, Putin's sock puppet Julian Assange is now all-in on Catalonian independence, which means that Russian intelligence is supporting them.

-Username17

[RobbyPants]

On a similar note, Putin's sock puppet Julian Assange is now all-in on Catalonian independence, which means that Russian intelligence is supporting them.

I figured that would be assumed; anything to destabilize a unified Europe.

[Chamomile]

Rebellion is not a crime, it's war.

You seem to have gotten through the first full paragraph of my post this time, so that's progress, but you really should get in the habit of reading complete posts before responding to them. In this case, that would mean both paragraphs of my original post.

[Username17]

Rebellion is not a crime, it's war.

You seem to have gotten through the first full paragraph of my post this time, so that's progress, but you really should get in the habit of reading complete posts before responding to them. In this case, that would mean both paragraphs of my original post.

You don't actually get to stamp your feet and yell about people not reading your posts. I read your posts. You said things. They were stupid and wrong. You fundamentally don't seem to grasp the situation.

The Catalonian regional authority declared that they don't have to follow Spanish laws and aren't going to. They have already risen in revolt. Once a province is in open rebellion, all actions are wartime actions. That is the beginning and end of the discussion. If you want to talk about responses being proportionate to the crimes you have already failed to grasp the situation. There is no crime. There is no proportionality. It's war.

-Username17

[DSMatticus]

Rats and cockroaches the lot of them. Murder them fucking all. Salt the earth. Poison the wells. It's the only way to be sure.

Frank, shut the sweet fuck up. The Catalonian executive branch held an independence referendum which they claimed was binding. That referendum was authorized by a simple majority in the Catalan parliament. As per the Statute of Autonomy of Catalonia, it needed to be authorized by a 2/3rd's majority. But the Statue of Autonomy of Catalonia was massively and unilaterally rewritten by the Constitutional Court of Spain a couple years after the people of Catalonia approved it. While law and constitutional law can be expected to change over time, this is not an example of that happening. This is an example of an epic bait and switch. The people of Catalonia voted to approve a document which made them a part of Spain given certain constraints and limitations on Spanish authority, and four years later Spain argued that they had the authority to simply ignore those constraints and limitations without any sort of democratic consent.

There is zero reason to consider the Statue of Autonomy of Catalonia a legitimate social contract. There are practical reasons to act like it is, of course - it avoids civil war and being a part of Spain is not, in fact, the end of the world. But "hahaha we suckered you into voting for an autonomy referendum, now you are subject to our courts, ergo now a mere four years later we will completely rewrite the referendum you approved into something you didn't" is an actual fucking casus belli. That is not democracy; that is conquest through deception. And yes, this event is when the Catalan independence movement starts getting very, very big.

This referendum - the one we just had - was not deemed illegal because it was a violation of the Statute of Autonomy of Catalonia. It was deemed illegal because the Constituional Court of Spain does not grant any basis for independence to anyone for any reason. That's... usually pretty fair. But in this case Spain basically dateraped their way into Catalonia's pants in the first place, so whether or not you think Catalonia has a legal basis for independence is entirely up to what you think the statue of limitations is on Spain's misconduct and your particular interpretation of the Calvinball that is international politics. I honestly could not tell you how I feel about this. The original Catalan Statues of Autonomy were very shitty and probably should not have been the basis for a nation. Pretending to accept them as is and then rewriting them four years later was also very shitty and should never have happened - it should have gone back to a referendum on which the Catalan people could have voted no and then Spain could have either accepted that or pointed a bunch of guns at them and said "I think you mean 'yes,' bitch." That, at least, would have been a conclusive outcome. But as-is Spain agreed to play by a set of rules then rewrote those rules at the earliest possible opportunity without admitting the game had changed or acknowledging the people of Catalonia had any right to complain.

The independence referendum received 90% support on 42% turnout. The reason the support is so high and the turnout is so low is because no voters boycotted instead of actually voting no. Spoiler: your vote doesn't count more because you refuse to cast it. It counts less. Just ask all the Sanders-or-bust types, who wanted progressivism and now get fascism. Hurrah! 90% support on 42% turnout is a level of support that makes Obama look small in the pants. Turnout in Catalonia is very high - 75% in the last election. Even if every missing voter from the last regional election had showed up and voted 'no,' the referendum still would have won.

But guess what? We really aren't even talking about whether or not Catalonia was within the rights to hold the referendum. I mean, the answer is yes - it turns out that of fucking course they are because the actual social contract by which they consented to become part of Spain was violated by Spain almost immediately after it was signed and the people of Catalonia were never asked to re-ratify the terms that were ultimately given to term. We are arguing about whether or not the correct response is to go full-on police crackdown (you know, like how they do in the Middle East) and start crushing all the rats and cockroaches who dare oppose your regime. And the answer to that is no, fuck you you disgusting piece of shit monster. You are talking about people whose crime against the state is non-violently organizing a democratic referendum. We are not lynching Gandhi because "THERE IS NO PROPORTIONALITY!!1! THIS IS WAR!" At worst, you arrest key figures of the Catalonian executive branch and legislature and then play it from there. At no point do people who commit the nonviolent act of voting in a referendum get their faces bashed in because "THIS IS WAR!" Because that's not fucking war and they're not fucking combatants you shit-kin.

Anyway tl;dr Catalonia has a surprisingly strong case for independence. The referendum they ratified to become a part of Spain was rewritten unilaterally by Spanish courts four years later and the Catalan people were never asked to accept those new terms, they were simply imposed upon them (over insanely large protests). And also Frank is a fucking psychopath.

[Username17]

Even if you think a simple majority is a basis to hold constitutional changes of any kind (note: obviously it is not), it is in fact normal to have a floor of turnout for a referendum to be binding. Fifty percent is not uncommon.

Declaring that you can propose constitutional ammendments with a simple majority in a local parliament after holding a referendum with no minimum turnout is total bullshit. That doesn't pass any smell test. Even the Confederacy had a better claim to having followed process for seceding than that.

If you can't muster a super majority to nullify the constitution, you can't nullify the consitution. Otherwise the constitution is just a regular law.

Edit:

But guess what? We really aren't even talking about whether or not Catalonia was within the rights to hold the referendum. I mean, the answer is yes - it turns out that of fucking course they are because the actual social contract by which they consented to become part of Spain was violated by Spain almost immediately after it was signed and the people of Catalonia were never asked to re-ratify the terms that were ultimately given to term.

Wait. I just read and re-read this shit multiple times. Do you not know what a Spanish Statute of Autonomy is? The Catalonians did not consent to become part of Spain in 2006. Catalonia has been part of Spain for longer than the Republic of Spain has existed. They were one of the regions that voted for the newly democratic constitution in 1978. That was the thing where they democratically agreed to a social contract to be part of Spain. 2006 is the year that the Catalonian regional government attempted to unilaterally change that social contract and 2010 is the year the courts unilaterally changed some of the contract back to the one that had been agreed upon earlier.

Every region of Spain has their own Statute of Autonomy. It's like a state constitution. In 2006, Catalonia did a referendum that changed their state constitution to among other things change how much money the federal government was supposed to give them. I have no idea how that's supposed to work, and neither does anyone else in Spain, which is is why all the other Autonomous Regions have protested and it went to the high court.

Now you can make a pretty compelling argument that Spanish courts in particular and really everything about the Spanish monarchy is total horse shit. And I would back you on that. But don't try to pretend that there's any part of what the Catalonian Independence Movement is doing which is in any way following or even acknowledging that the rule of law might be a good idea.

-Username17

[Chamomile]

There is no crime. There is no proportionality. It's war.

I'm going to ignore every other stupid and/or monstrous thing you've said because none of it matters in the face of these three sentences. It's really hard to be any more obviously beyond the pale. Frank, what the Hell is wrong with you?

[Username17]

There is no crime. There is no proportionality. It's war.

I'm going to ignore every other stupid and/or monstrous thing you've said because none of it matters in the face of these three sentences. It's really hard to be any more obviously beyond the pale. Frank, what the Hell is wrong with you?

If you cannot understand the difference between legal disagreements and war, you are badly unprepared for the turbulent times we are in.

If I propose something within the legal framework, and you don't like it and oppose it within the legal framework, we are part of the same society. Social contracts matter. Norms of behavior matter.

If I propose something within the legal framework and you set fire to that legal framework and tell me that the legal framework doesn't count and you're going to do whatever you want and I can't stop you... well that's war. That's what war is. I do things, you do things, and neither one of us has a legal framework to resolve disputes in. Now we start shooting at each other and determining who has more blood they can spill.

You don't get to just stamp your feet and say I haven't read your drivle or that I'm obviously wrong or some shit. What the fuck do you think happens when people refuse to resolve their disputes within the context of constitutional law? How the fuck do you think that turns out?

-Username17

[Kaelik]

I guess we officially have the Frank Trollman answer to whether Ghandi and the Indian dependence movement should have been rounded up and shot, along with their families and every single indian who is indian at all because the whole country was in rebellion.

Apparently the answer is Yes.

[Omegonthesane]

There is no crime. There is no proportionality. It's war.

Of all the Denners to come out as a monster, why you? You were better than this. I looked up to you.

[DSMatticus]

Even if you think a simple majority is a basis to hold constitutional changes of any kind (note: obviously it is not), it is in fact normal to have a floor of turnout for a referendum to be binding. Fifty percent is not uncommon.

Yes, it is common, and it is completely 100% fucking abusable. It is an awkward and gameable kludge we use because it guarantees that small groups can't control low interest issues and that governance will occur through ordinary, more stable mechanisms. Catalan independence is demonstrably not low interest.

Wait. I just read and re-read this shit multiple times. Do you not know what a Spanish Statute of Autonomy is? The Catalonians did not consent to become part of Spain in 2006. Catalonia has been part of Spain for longer than the Republic of Spain has existed. They were one of the regions that voted for the newly democratic constitution in 1978. That was the thing where they democratically agreed to a social contract to be part of Spain. 2006 is the year that the Catalonian regional government attempted to unilaterally change that social contract and 2010 is the year the courts unilaterally changed some of the contract back to the one that had been agreed upon earlier.

Every region of Spain has their own Statute of Autonomy. It's like a state constitution. In 2006, Catalonia did a referendum that changed their state constitution to among other things change how much money the federal government was supposed to give them. I have no idea how that's supposed to work, and neither does anyone else in Spain, which is is why all the other Autonomous Regions have protested and it went to the high court.

Now you can make a pretty compelling argument that Spanish courts in particular and really everything about the Spanish monarchy is total horse shit. And I would back you on that. But don't try to pretend that there's any part of what the Catalonian Independence Movement is doing which is in any way following or even acknowledging that the rule of law might be a good idea.

I actually did fuck up and confuse parts of the 1978 and 2006 referendum, so there's that. The Spanish government attempted to modify the Statutes of Autonomy four years after they were signed ~1978, but that attempt was struck down by the court instead of delivered by it.

But here is the full historical deal; Spain and Catalonia are not really been held together by any kind of mutual desire to be a single nation at any point. They were smashed together by royal inheritance bullshit and then - more recently - a fascist asshole. And over the past several hundred years the only times the Catalan people have not gradually escalated their claims for greater autonomy is when they were being murdered. They approved of the 1978 Spanish Constitution in the context of the overthrow of a fascist government that had completely erased by violence any autonomous government they once held, and the 1978 Spanish Constitution gave them back autonomous government. And a few year laters when the Spanish government would try to pass a law weakening the Statutes of Autonomy, that sparked a bunch of Catalan protests until the court struck most of it down.

Catalonia has fairly consistently voted for "more independence" whenever a vote was put in front of them. Indeed, politico polling has support for the status quo (or greater integration) at a whopping 35.8% while support for greater federalization or independence are at 56.4%. And that's coming off of a dip before Spanish police started cracking faces; the difference has polled as starkly as 28.1% vs 65.3% in recent years. Support for actually holding the referendum is higher still than support for independence. Spain's legal arguments and tactics have made it abundantly clear that they are not going to allow any referendum, binding or nonbinding, held legally or illegally. Indeed, the last time Catalonia held a nonbinding not-referendum the Spanish government went after the people who organized for that too. Spain is not interested in giving Catalonia a democratic means of expressing their grievances because Spain is afraid they will lose (and we're at the point now where they probably would), and that is fundamentally bullshit. You cannot set the bar higher than people can actually jump and then claim the game isn't rigged.

Gerrymandering is not actually okay because it's technically within the bounds of the constitution and if people don't like it they can just vote against representatives who support it (and fail because gerrymandering). It's fundamentally treasonous to the very notion of democracy and we should have responded to the first asshole to try it with such brazen intent by putting him in front of a court and sentencing him to hanging for treason. Is that arbitrary? Yes, pretty much. Is it obvious? Fuck yes. What part of 'by the people' did you not understand? Did you think that part was optional?

Whether or not Catalonia can justify independence by any ethical framework is... well, it's kind of an arbitrary fucking argument. International politics is inherently Calvinball because rights aren't real we just made them fucking up. Catalonia may or may not want independence. Catalonia almost certainly wants to hold a referendum on independence, or at least greater autonomy. Spain very much wants to keep Catalonia, because without Catalonia they could plausibly collapse under the crushing weight of EU austerity Greek-style (less true now than it would have been during the peak of the crisis, but still a real risk). Who is right to want what isn't really a question that can be answered. It's also not the question that is trying to be answered here, because Spanish police are beating people's faces in for participating in a referendum and you are here advocating a wartime crackdown like you're motherfucking Bashar Al-Assad. Spain - and you - are simply way the fuck over the line.

[Mask_De_H]

When there's mobilization of state violence against another state, the violent state is emphatically answering "no" to DSM's question of validity.

E: Given that Catalonia is still a part of a unitary state, they legally cannot do anything without hitting the numbers the central government decrees. And if that's unjust or unfair, it's orthogonal to being illegal. What the Catalonians did is illegal. What the Spanish are doing is unfair. The justice of either, I don't know enough to say.

[Username17]

I guess we officially have the Frank Trollman answer to whether Ghandi and the Indian dependence movement should have been rounded up and shot, along with their families and every single indian who is indian at all because the whole country was in rebellion.

Apparently the answer is Yes.

Don't be retarded Kaelik. Protesting laws you don't like by breaking them is a civil matter that takes place within the context of the social contract. You then have authorities that are bound by their own limits of legal responses and society is forced to evaluate whether those legal responses are justified and thus whether the laws in question are justified.

Ghandi makes salt in direct violation of the protectionist laws of the British Empire, and the appropriate and allowable response by the authorities is the statutory fines for doing that. The public is then confronted with how ridiculous those laws are in the first place, and if the authorities step over the line in attempting to stop him from doing that, then they are in the wrong and progress can be made in the legal framework.

Unilateral declarations that constitutional law doesn't count and you're going to go play Calvinball isn't that. It's simply a declaration that you aren't going to participate in the social contract at all. It simply cannot fail to escalate into violence unless the other side submits to dictatorship.

-Username17

[Zinegata]

There is no crime. There is no proportionality. It's war.

Of all the Denners to come out as a monster, why you? You were better than this. I looked up to you.

Except Frank's technically right and Chamomile has never understood the difference between domestic law and international law. That's always been one of the big problems with "left" who try to posture their moral superiority but end up getting completely defeated politically by the "right". Their sense of righteous outrage blinds them to the reality of what's going on and it's one of the major drivers of the resurgence of the political right in the Anglo-Saxon world. Quite frankly, reality doesn't give a damn about how righteous you think your cause is. You have to be both very politically savvy and a pacifist in order to become a Gandhi; you don't become a Gandhi just by being a pacifist.

Anyway, the key thing to realize is that domestic law and international law are not equivalent things. Trying to apply domestic law standards to disputes between nations is about as futile as trying to file murder charges against Kim Jong Un.

International law, quite frankly, it still very much the law of the jungle. Strong nations tell weaker nations what to do, or the weaker nation gets bombed. And nobody can stop it because while some very disputed international laws and courts exists (e.g. crimes against humanity) they are not enforceable without enough firepower sponsored by a real world power.

That's why all the war criminals being tried at The Hague come from Third World shitholes. The EU can totally send tanks to root out some Serbian war criminals, but nobody is going to be sending tanks to North Korea to file a subpoena against Kim Jong Un because that might result in an actual nuclear exchange that leaves Seoul a glowing radioactive crater.

In the case of Catalan arguing over the legality of the referendum or independence is pointless. The international situation is instead extremely simple - Catalan's government wishes to break away from Spain and become an independent state. The Spanish government is firmly against this happening. That very much makes the situation a rebellion, as Frank noted, hence it has moved from a domestic legal matter to an international one between two states.

That the Catalans pretty much got pasted by just police is merely demonstration of how international "justice" really works. If you want to be a state, then you need to be able to have the firepower to assert your independence or have people with sufficient firepower to sponsor your independence.

Indeed, Catalan's government at this point has been pretty much reduced to begging for the latter, by playing the "outrage" card in order to try and find some sponsors with actual firepower.

The problem here - besides the fact that one madman in Las Vegas has completely stolen the news cycle while another madman in DC is trying to murder America through twitter - is that it's a move that's in total ignorance and opposition to the principle of Westphalian Sovereignty, which is one of the few principles respected on the international stage which frowns upon "meddling" in internal disputes of another country. Indeed, foreigners who support Catalan independence can be very much seen in the same light as Russian meddling in the US election - outside interlopers attempting to interfere in a state's sovereign rights.

That's why I doubt this "independence" movement is going to be successful and would most likely just lead to a crackdown on Catalan's autonomy. The leaders pushing for the independence were morons who completely failed to understand how nation-states actually work.

With all this being said however - I'm a pacifist and I abhor violence. I don't think the police action needed to be that extreme. But from a strictly legal standpoint, Frank's right. The rules of the jungle applied and the Catalan government is just as much to blame for trying to be a nation-state without realizing what it actually entails. At this point it's basically just a messy reintegration that awaits.

[Kaelik]

Don't be retarded Kaelik. Protesting laws you don't like by breaking them is a civil matter that takes place within the context of the social contract. You then have authorities that are bound by their own limits of legal responses and society is forced to evaluate whether those legal responses are justified and thus whether the laws in question are justified.

Ghandi makes salt in direct violation of the protectionist laws of the British Empire, and the appropriate and allowable response by the authorities is the statutory fines for doing that. The public is then confronted with how ridiculous those laws are in the first place, and if the authorities step over the line in attempting to stop him from doing that, then they are in the wrong and progress can be made in the legal framework.

Unilateral declarations that constitutional law doesn't count and you're going to go play Calvinball isn't that. It's simply a declaration that you aren't going to participate in the social contract at all. It simply cannot fail to escalate into violence unless the other side submits to dictatorship.

-Username17

Don't be an idiot. Your official position is the genocide of Catalanese is somehow the correct course of action because their self appointed political leaders had an opinion poll.

The obvious corollary is that Indians choosing political leaders, skipping the opinion poll, and declaring they wanted independence was itself an act of rebellion that justifies the genocide of all Indians.

You could have been not a genocidal maniac, and grounded your criticism in the failure of the Catalan officials to carry out their duties as officials of the government. But you didn't, because then you wouldn't be able to claim that murdering Catalan citizens is Good and Right and you had to find some way to say that the police state beating citizens to death were in the right.

The consequence of not grounding your criticism on the grounds of a failure of the officials and instead finding a way to justify murdering innocent civilians is that when the Indian people developed a goddam independence movement and chose their own political leaders, they were also fair game for genocide for "rebellion."

In the future, if you just admit that murdering innocent civilians is wrong, you can find a way to criticize the referendum without being a genocidal monster.

[deaddmwalking]

Advocating for Independence is not 'open rebellion'. A non-binding vote is a form of protest, not a rebellion. Actions following the vote might or might not qualify as open rebellion.

Trying to stop the referendum is a legitimate action the Spanish state can take. Beating voters is not.

The state has an obligation to protect citizens...

When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

I'm sure that Catalonia could work through their concerns using the legal framework. I'm further certain that Spain could be sure they would not secede using the legal framework. But they certainly provided ammunition for an accusation of abandoning their duties to their citizens and thus justifying dissolution of political connections.

[Kaelik]

I mean.... for fucks sake, is anyone as fucking pissed the fuck off as I am that Frank Trollman has decided to cast the Indian Self Rule Movement as really about how salt laws were bad, but Britain ruling India forever was perfectly acceptable to them and they definitely weren't pursing independence?

[DSMatticus]

The whole Indian Independence Movement is a clusterfuck for him because India responded to Gandhi's imprisonment by burning down goddamn police stations. The movement did not respect the rule of law for the sake of respecting the rule of law. It respected the rule of law for the sake of not getting shot while advocating for independence, and when it became obvious that there would no means to pursue independence within the frameworks given to them they started setting fire to things.

Burning down police stations in the name of independence is not "protesting laws you don't like by breaking them (which is a civil matter that takes place within the context of the social contract)." It is open and violent rebellion, and they were justified in doing it because constitutional law is not an ethical imperative especially when you remember that it was once permissible to fucking own black people. What the laws - constitutional or otherwise - should be is a complicated utilitarian argument and factors that go into that are shit like autonomy, welfare, stability, accountability, and so forth and so on. Constitutional law is only worthy of our respect insofar as it provides a framework to resolve such disputes without the loss of life. If it cannot resolve said disputes because it is horribly broken, then constitutional law is not to be respected. If violence is happening regardless, constitutional law has little to protect us from and is not to be respected.

Both Catalonia and Spain have meritorious arguments. Spain's courts have made it clear that constitutional law will not be allowed to resolve this debate. Violence in Catalonia could be worse than it is now. So while it is very difficult to answer the question "independence y/n?" in any objective fashion, literally the only thing you can say in defense of using the Spanish constitution to answer that question is that it will always 100% give Spain the win because Catalonia could never stack the courts they need to stack, and if Spain doesn't win they'll murder a bunch of Catalans, ergo the Spanish constitution provides us with the path of least death and tyranny of the two viable options assuming Spain will never not be a dick. Of course, reading that you should probably immediately think "man, this situation seems like it would be easier to solve if Spain weren't a dick." Yes, yes it would. And that alone is another compelling argument for Catalan independence - probably the most compelling they actually have.

[maglag]

Gotta love Frank's logic here.

Civilians burning government stuff down: "civil matter that takes place within the context of the social contract"

Civilians voting in a referendum: PURGE THE FILTHY REBEL SCUM!

[Chamomile]

words

You seem to be under the impression that you're responding to me, but your response is so completely detached from anything I actually said that I can't see how you could possibly have actually read what I wrote and imagined that I said any of the things you claimed I did. I know who I'm talking to, so it's not weird that you'd take the side that's obviously wrong because unfailingly you conflate being in the minority with being correct, but the road you took to get there is dumb even for you, in that you usually manage to at least correctly identify what the conversation is about (hint: it's not about foreign intervention in Catalonia, a course of action which precisely zero people have advocated).