patrick.net

Bellingham Bill says

Do you consider food a right? Do you consider clothing a right? Do you consider shelter a right?

In a society where people pay taxes, yes, the basic necessities of life are a right. If we lived in anarchy where there was no government to tax us, regulate land, impose laws preventing us from defecating on the ground like all other life does and we used to do before civilization, then the conservative argument would be correct. The fact that the government prevents you from defecating on the ground means that you have the right to free access to facilities where it is legal to defecate because it's a biological need. You cannot live without defecating, so if defecation is restricted by any means, then free access to the legal means of defecation is a human right.

You cannot hunt and gather except with the explicit permission of the government. You cannot even plant crops without the state recognizing your claim on a piece of land and your payment of taxes to it despite the fact that none of that land was created by the state or anyone else and no one has any more legitimate right to claim it than you or anyone else. Because of this, your ability to obtain food is severely restricted by the state unlike in the Stone Age. Therefore, access to food even by those who have no money, is a human right. Letting people starve is only acceptable if the state does nothing to prevent people from hunting, gathering, and growing their own food on whatever land they occupy -- and prevention includes taxing people for the use of land. Now one might make an allowance that most people, being able to afford food, should have to pay for it, but this does not apply to those who cannot afford food.

You cannot practice medicine without a license or go to a person for care who does not have a license. You cannot manufacture your own medicines or buy them from an unlicensed source. You cannot import medicine from other countries. You cannot use many medicines without the permission of the state, and the state will refuse permission for many of them such as marijuana. For all these reasons, access to medicine and health care is a right. It's a right that is obtain by giving away so many other freedoms.

So I don't buy the conservative argument that the only rights you have is the right to do what you please. You do not have the right to do what you please. We, as a society, have decided that effeciency is far more important than freedom. OK, but then we get rights in exchange for the rights we have given up. That's the deal. The state and politicians benefit greatly from the us giving up some rights and letting the state control so much, so we deserve rights essentially to prevent death and impoverishment to make up for all those rights we've given up to the state. We forfeited those rights precisely to get others.

This is why there should be a concept of economic rights. If we lived according the conservative view of no taxes and no rights except your own labor, we'd have to get rid of all government and we'd be living like we did in the Stone Age with short, hard lives.

Bellingham Bill says

that's just it, they won't "get" more money, they'll keep more money of their money. This is the same logic of the US right-wing with their current tax cut proposal.

Then this is a reason to lower taxes, not to break the social-welfare (in whatever degree, from 0% to 100%) towards your favor, in the middle of the game.

It's disgusting how some Catalans say the want to stop Madrid to steal them their money and they want to use this money to create strong welfare programs for their own

Did I mention that they got control of the parliament only because of a ultra-left support party (they are themselves anticapitalist, if you called them social-democrates it's an insult)

TwoScoopsMcGee says

1500: The Silver is only for Castellanos, Catalans. No Entrance to the New World For You! Silver Galleons may only stop in Castille.
1850: Brother Catalans, let us share the debt for our collapsing New World Empire.

Actually, Castille discovery of the New world was benfitial for Catalonia as you can see by its historical developent. Fair or not, it was the right of Castille to claim it, since Isabel send her ships and not Fernando. And before 1714, Castille and Aragon/Catalonia union was on good terms and for mutual benefit (kill muslims, of course)

Sorry, I don't know about what happened in 1850. Do you have any pointers?

Dan8267 says

This is why there should be a concept of economic rights. If we lived according the conservative view of no taxes and no rights except your own labor, we'd have to get rid of all government and we'd be living like we did in the Stone Age with short, hard lives.

Sure.. problem is finding the right quantity and quality of government intervention into a country. This is why democracy is (more or less) good. People (more or less) can decide if some policy is good or too bad based on the effects on them.

And the real problem is how to decide what constitutes a country. As the Spanish/Catalan conflict shows, when you have opposite interests, there is no democratic way. Just good old fighting or pretense of.

ja says

Actually, Castille discovery of the New world was benfitial for Catalonia as you can see by its historical developent. Fair or not, it was the right of Castille to claim it, since Isabel send her ships and not Fernando. And before 1714, Castille and Aragon/Catalonia union was on good terms and for mutual benefit (kill muslims, of course)

Catalans weren't excluded from the New World AND the New World trade was confined to unloading in certain Castillian ports, yes?

Eventually it was beneficial, but only indirectly. And some would argue the "Spanish" focus on the New World weakened Aragon/Catalonia's interests in Sardinia, Sicily, etc. The massive inflation due to Castille's Silver Mines no doubt touched Catalonia (and the Basque country) early. SInce both regions were known producers of goods, rather than Indian slaying plunderers of silver, it hurt them harder.

Nothing happened in 1850 except the Spanish Empire was mostly defunct by then, and the Castellanos were playing up united Spain paying bills together - after the Silver Mines were lost to Castille.

In 1714, as always, the Castillians preferred a Buttinsky Centralized Monarch to a decentralized Empire and forced the Catalonians to agree by arms.

Catalonia will eventually be free, no matter how much Cruel Castille invents baloney stories about Catalan (a lengue d'Oc, Occitan) being derived from Spanish (a lengue d' Si), Castille being the first to drive the Muslims out (it was the Catalans who first took territory back from Islam and kept it), etc. etc.

Two other interesting things about Spain: Franco offered Hitler a list of all Jews in Spain in 1940, and offered to enter the war on the Axis side if Hitler would agree to help retake Gibraltar. Hitler didn't want to commit the troops, Britain was already weak, and was already thinking of Barbarossa. Of course Franco offered the Blue Division in the Crusade Against the Reds.

ja says

This is why democracy is (more or less) good.

The first step to getting democracy is admitting that you have never, ever lived in a democracy in your life. Neither have your parents, grand-parents, or great great great great great grandparents. Understanding this requires knowing what a democracy is and that a republic is not a democracy.

ja says

And the real problem is how to decide what constitutes a country. As the Spanish/Catalan conflict shows, when you have opposite interests, there is no democratic way. Just good old fighting or pretense of.

There is, of course, a rational, peaceful, and effective solution. There should be a world-wide right to succession where any 10% or more of a population that wants to succeed from a country can do so taking a proportional amount of the country's land with them. This would require a legal framework and procedures for implementations, but that's a hell of lot easier than fighting civil wars. It would also force countries to not screw over their population. Imagine if the black population in America exercised such a right and took one eighth the land of the country. There mere possibility of this would end systemic state racism.

Dan8267 says

There is, of course, a rational, peaceful, and effective solution. There should be a world-wide right to succession where any 10% or more of a population that wants to succeed from a country can do so taking a proportional amount of the country's land with them. This would require a legal framework and procedures for implementations, but that's a hell of lot easier than fighting civil wars. It would also force countries to not screw over their population. Imagine if the black population in America exercised such a right and took one eighth the land of the country. There mere possibility of this would end systemic state racism.

I'd agree to something like that (some law above Constitutions). But tell these to the Castilian. Or to the Catalans once/if they create their own state

Here you have the heir of Almirall (http://www.morningstar.com/stocks/LTS/0O9B/quote.html) celebrating Democracy (she is anti-indepence).

http://www.larazon.es/espana/susana-gallardo-heredera-de-la-farmaceutica-almirall-demuestra-que-se-puede-votar-tanta-veces-como-se-quiera-FM16384313
She is saying how much she enjoys democracy. She has voted 4 times so far and counting

She is also saying she will send the video to CNN. Anybody saw it?

"We're going to disrupt your democratic referendum.

Oh. Because we disrupted your referendum, it didn't go on without a hitch.

Therefore your referendum is illegal AND it's illegitimate. Arriba Espana!"

Paging Guy Verhofstadt and the rest of the Neoliberal "Democracy!" Jokers.

So far,

It's getting more support from ultra right and ultra left

http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/861793/catalonia-referendum-eu-nigel-farage-independence-spain-police-violence-barcelona http://indianexpress.com/article/world/venezuelas-nicolas-maduro-condemns-brutal-repression-in-catalonia-4871097/

sorry.. I forgot Rusia

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/global-opinions/catalonia-held-a-referendum-russia-won/2017/10/02/f618cd7c-a798-11e7-92d1-58c702d2d975_story.html?tid=ss_tw&utm_term=.8215f02f73a4

2008: EU recognizes the independence of KOSOVO, despite violent separatism, terrorism, and the referendum being illegal under Serbian Law.
2018: EU refuses to recognize the independence of CATALONIA, despite lack of violent separatism & terrorism, using the excuse that the referendum was illegal under Spanish law.

Also, the King of Spain gave a speech where he did not mention police violence, make a single acknowledgement of any grievance, and did so under a portrait of King Carlos III, who banned the Catalan language.

ja says

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/global-opinions/catalonia-held-a-referendum-russia-won/2017/10/02/f618cd7c-a798-11e7-92d1-58c702d2d975_story.html?tid=ss_tw&utm_term=.8215f02f73a4

If an outside-entity can host a referendum in Kosovo against Serbian Law, then Russia can host a referendum in Crimea, which isn't illegal and already happened multiple times under Ukrainian Law (it just got ignored or reversed each time it previously happened by Kiev).

If Kosovo can be recognized as independent from non-EU Serbia, certainly Catalonia can be recognized as independent since all it's citizens are also EU Citizens.

Extremist Neoliberal ("Centrist") Double Standards at work. Another example of "International Law" and the unbiased nature of "Supranational Governance"

"Why, every nation is entitled to independence, but only if it serves our interests. The Freedom of Nations is based on our arbitrary decision, not on objective standards" - EU Members.

I do love a great example of "Turnabout is Fair Play" and "Enjoy the Fruits of your Arbitrary decisions of convenience". Realism is alive and well, and International Law looks more and more like the pastiche of legality, the Color of law, that it is.

Internationalists actually make the world dangerous because they add the opacity of legality and morality over International Relations, when in reality, Geopolitical Realism is always primary. It's just more dangerous because it cloaks self-interest under a false cloak of Legality.

TwoScoopsMcGee says

2008: EU recognizes the independence of KOSOVO, despite violent separatism, terrorism, and the referendum being illegal under Serbian Law.
2018: EU refuses to recognize the independence of CATALONIA, despite lack of violent separatism & terrorism, using the excuse that the referendum was illegal under Spanish law

Yes, politics do not change since and morality shall not interfere with your own strategics interests. Sometimes you hit, sometimes you negotiate. Case by case. Since there is no enforcable supra-world law, states behave like tribes and use the law of the wist and the hand-shake and not the rule of the law. Hopefully this will change sometime

Back to this century

Pretending by Catalonia that the rule of the stick and the hand-shake does not exist and they only have to claim universal justice and that would be serve, it's naive. Making your citizens believe it exists and put them on danger (physically, but more importantly socially and economically), it's irresponsible.

Some catalans are starting to realize that they are alone in this journey and convincing themselves they shall not fear it.

But this is just my opinion. Perhaps Catalonia has convinced China to back them up militarily and/or economically and I'll be proved naive.

aa

anonymous says

aa

kk

California should secede too, we pay way more in taxes than we get back from central government....oh and we have a distinct culture too. Viva la independencia!

At least they will be able to use better technology (I think it deserves a new post)

ja says

Yes, politics do not change since and morality shall not interfere with your own strategics interests. Sometimes you hit, sometimes you negotiate. Case by case. Since there is no enforcable supra-world law, states behave like tribes and use the law of the wist and the hand-shake and not the rule of the law. Hopefully this will change sometime

Yes, I am a realist.

However, the Neoliberals of the EU and USA - Bush, Obama, Blair, Merkel - all insist there is international law, and make a big deal of the Hague and Geneva and UN Resolutions.

Because of the International Law fraud, nobody knows when it will be applied and when it won't be and they'll get away with it. Realism is considered declasse in political discourse. The end result is nobody knows where they stand, and what (lack of ) consequences there will be for many actions, which breeds uncertainty and danger.

But, I'm not the only one who notices. With the EU's handwashing, the Catalans and much of Europe just got Redpilled. Apparently rights are only for Muslims.

That's my beef.

Muslims live in dictatorships or pseudo-democracies. And of course, it's easy to preach democracy when you don't have to deal with the consequences

But allowing unilateral idepndence under the international law?? Does this exist? Any remote change anybody will support it in the next 100 years?
If there are humans rights violations they can be denounced or prosecuted, but I doubt they would justify secession when this violations, in any case, would have been performed to stop it.

ja says

But allowing unilateral idepndence under the international law??

The principle of self-determination is part of the UN Charter, which of course Spain is a member of. Among other treaties and agreements.

Of course, it's nebulously defined with no objective standards.

EU wanted to weaken Serbia, so Kosovo Independence was okay.
The EU doesn't want to wekaen Spain, so Catalan Independence isn't okay.

What it can't possible be is: No seccession is possible, no vote allowed, therefore if there is no legal vote, you can't leave.