I have to agree with @Fardragon to a point, in that Americans are a culpable for this gun culture society. A couple dozen first-graders were gunned down in their classroom, and we essentially shrugged our shoulders. That marked the end of the gun debate for me. Obama and Biden attempted to rally support for the most cursory of background checks and regulations, and the NRA and Republicans in Congress put up a brick wall. Since Columbine, we have seen incidents like Las Vegas multiple times a year for nearly 2 decades. And done jack shit. If you want a country with unfettered access to deadly weaponry, this is what you get. We made our bed on the gun issue, and now have to lie in it.
The point is this: if 50 people die in road traffic accidents it is very sad for the families concerned, but if nothing changes it's of no real significance to anyone else.
In addition to being callous, that's non sequitur. Mass killings are societally significant beyond the impact of numerical loss of life. It's a terroristic attack that has ramifications on the larger community.
The point is this: if 50 people die in road traffic accidents it is very sad for the families concerned, but if nothing changes it's of no real significance to anyone else.
In addition to being callous, that's non sequitur. Mass killings are societally significant beyond the impact of numerical loss of life. It's a terroristic attack that has ramifications on the larger community.
He's way off-base in saying it is only a tragedy to those involved, but he remains correct in saying that we have done this to ourselves. Guns serve one purpose, which is to kill. We are a society awash in them from coast to coast. And any country that allows it's citizens to legally purchase machine guns is going to have a whole lot of people get killed because of that fact. This country is f**ked up beyond repair.
re: Spain/Catalonia It is *always* legal for a group of people in a region to want to become independent from whatever nation of which they are currently a part. Spain's crackdown will teach the people longing for Catalonian independence that the legitimate path will not give them what they want;, thus, some of them will turn into violent separatists.
re: Las Vegas The world is not a safe place--random violence can happen in any place at any time. This guy was definitely a lone wolf but he didn't just "snap" all of a sudden--no, what we are going to find out over the next week is that there were indicators that the people in his life probably saw but ignored or misinterpreted (presuming he had anyone in his life). What is interesting, though, is that people express care about what happened in Las Vegas but only because it all happened at once. 524 people have been killed in Chicago this year but that doesn't ruffle any feathers because most people conclude "that's life in the big city", which is just another way of saying "it's all part of the plan, even if the plan in horrible". Unlike the shooting in Nashville, where a conceal-carry person was able to retrieve their weapon and confront the attacker to prevent more loss of life, this shooter was across the street and 32 floors up--no amount of guns in the hands of people on the ground would have made a difference.
re: Supreme Court The SCOTUS is back in session; high profile cases this session will include the new travel ban, immigration, voting rights/gerrymandering voting districts, religious liberty vs. personal liberty (yes, the wedding cake case is *still* being dragged out in court), and cell phone privacy (do police need a warrant to track your cell phone location as your device pings from tower to tower? the argument is that location information has already been given to a third party--the providers and operators of the towers--and so it isn't "your" data any more). Also, the questions remain as to whether Kennedy and Ginsberg may retire this year, which would give Trump two appointments.
re: Puerto Rico I suspect that when many people hear "Puerto Rico" for some reason they think "Mexico", which is not only illogical but incorrect. Demographically, Puerto Rico is 75.8% white--most people's ancestors there came directly from Spain--so why anyone thinks that the back-and-forth bickering between Trump and the local leadership is about "people of color" is laughable. The people in Puerto Rico aren't lazy--only 5% of the island has electricity at this time and most are still trying to figure out where they will obtain today's clean food and water. This is plenty of aid on the ground, but a lot of it is still stuck in shipping containers at the ports--the on-the-ground logistics of distribution is being delayed by a lack of people-power, not because of lethargy.
re: Spain/Catalonia It is *always* legal for a group of people in a region to want to become independent from whatever nation of which they are currently a part. Spain's crackdown will teach the people longing for Catalonian independence that the legitimate path will not give them what they want;, thus, some of them will turn into violent separatists.
it's appropriate for "a people" (not some random group of people) to seek self-determination if they want so but the residents of catalonia are not a people just because catalonia has administrative borders, just like californians aren't a people under the doctrine of international law. to have a people you must have a self-determination as a collective political subject first, and only then a self-determination for sovereignty. the principle of blood doesn't hold water in the 21st century anymore. and many residents are spanish first and only then catalan. we don't have a cohesive people here. just look at the turnout
edit: it would have been wise to create a referendum about a referendum. the catalans know this. but they failed to make this referendum. instead some politicians, cheaply, drafted a declaration https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catalan_Declaration_of_Sovereignty of course a simple declaration wouldn't do...
i respect your view and it'svalid for the us but the legal and political doctrine is different in europe. the subject of democracy is not the simple sum of individuals it's a constituency. a constituency has a will and the voting is an expression of this will. a majority decides because a majority of people is the predominant essence, the true will of the constituency. but in catalonia there is no constituency for this referendum. what defines the catalan constituency for the purposes of this referendum, administrative borders? they mean nothing in this regard. the autonomy in spain means nothing for the purposes of self-determination. the only criteria can be the ethnic criteria, an ethnic constituency. and we're so over that
Catalonia is already defined as a nation with specific borders within the Spanish constitution - so I don't think there's any issue about what is the constituency. As others have touched on, if you believe in the right to self-determination, then the fact that Spain doesn't allow secession would not be a bar to doing it.
As to what is the will of Catalonia I agree that this referendum should not be seen as the final word. However, if the Spanish government tries to ignore it (as opposed to setting up an agreed process to do it properly) they are likely to provoke considerable unrest. The stated turn out of 42% actually seems pretty high to me. Given that the Spanish government was forcibly closing and occupying polling stations the fact that so many people were willing to take the risk of voting suggests to me there is a genuine mandate there.
Major and binding political decisions are taken within democracies all the time - and rarely will such decisions be by a majority of people. Trump for instance was voted for by around 30% of the electorate, while Brexit was supported by about 38%. It's not a requirement for democracy to work well that a majority of people support all decisions. It is a requirement, however, that opportunities are offered to have your say about the issues as well as vote. That's what is dangerous about the actions of the Spanish government - they are upholding the 'rule of law' at the expense of democracy.
It is shockingly easy to kill with a gun, all you got to do is squeeze the the trigger with one of your fingers.
Wait no, it's not shocking at all most of us figured this out years ago.
It's shockingly easy to kill with a truck or any other vehicle too. Just point it in the right direction and push the gas pedal.
It is far easier (and cheaper) to get a gun in this country than a driver's license and a car. Not that the first part matters much if someone was going to use a car that way, but there isn't a single test one has to take to own something that's sole purpose is to end life. You fill out a form and have a couple hundred bucks, you have the means to kill anyone. To get a car, you'll likely have to shell out at least a grand.
Civilians shouldn't have access to assualt rifles. If we decide to live in a country where we allow that (and we do and have), then something lile Las Vegas is going to happen 3 or 4 times a year in perpetuity. No other developed country even remotely approaches the United States in the amount of gun violence and mass shootings. No one else is even in the running.
Yes, I'm sure he could have killed over 50 and injured a further 400 people without access to guns.
You CAN kill people with other weapons and means. You can kill far more far easier with automatic weapons. The only thing that could cause more death would be a bomb. And making and detonating a bomb requires infinitely more effort than pulling a trigger.
- not a nation - not borders (administrative division doesn't create those borders) - not a final word and not a starting word. it's a failed act of unconstitutional adventurism. rather than ignoring it spain will punish it and the EU will consent because that's the legal and political doctrine and tradition there. - to suggest that a minority in a territory could justifiably secede and determine the statehood of their territory is bad. it's an idea opposed to modern political freedoms - american presidential elections and the american constitution belong to a different political tradition. the lack of popular support in american elections is considered a big problem for us democracy. this has nothing to do with referenda in europe which are 1 person 1 vote - brexit is ridiculous and the voting system that led to it is backwards and shameful. the situation in uk is now best qualified as a constitutional crisis
@bob_veng Independence doesn't have anything to do with "blood" or qualifying "people" by some common ancestry; instead, these days "a group of people" can all have a sense of a collective identity based on their region. For example, I am certain many Californians consider themselves "Californian" even if they weren't born there--they identify with their chosen region and that gives them part of their sense of self.
I do not defend the actions of the leadership of the Catalonians--some of those leaders are probably self-promoted, in any event--but the larger problem now becomes what I described: some die-hard true believers will pick up molotovs since their votes aren't going to count.
A reminder that one political party in this country is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the NRA, and the other one isn't.
Although I fully support the right of people to own guns, there is no legitimate reason that a private citizen needs a silencer (which should be called "suppressors" for the sake of accuracy). The only people who need those are military snipers on assignment and--let's be truthful here--intelligence operatives who might need to kill someone as part of a mission. (yes, our government has assassins on its payroll--if you think they don't then you are hopelessly naive) I do also support conceal carry across State lines, though--the "full faith and credit" clause, the same feature which allows my Texas driver's license to be legal in Missouri, means that my Texas conceal carry license should also be legal in every other State.
I am no fan of the NRA, though. For years they fought tooth and nail to prevent any sort of "gun owner database"...only to find out that they had been keeping their own such database for the purposes of mailing flyers or fundraising purposes. Ironic hypocrisy is ironic.
Anyway...so far there does not appear to be any police history on the shooter, who lived in a small town northeast of Las Vegas (on the Arizona-Nevada border). There were other weapons at the residence but no indication yet as to what set him off.
a group of people doesn't cut it. it has to be "a people". define me what is "a people" here - the fact that there is a spanish province and that yeah people live on this human inhabited territory doesn't make this population "a people" for the purposes of self-determination. when people rightfully boycott the referendum you can't say "yeah, you could have voted but you didn't sad day for you". or you can if they are objectively called upon to vote. but if they aren't (and here they aren't unlike in scotland) then it's evil to say that. it's simply a rogue maneuver that disempowers a large number of people, in this case the majority of people
what gives the catalan government right to say that the referendum is binding regardless of voter turnout? (they said this before the police intervention) they don't have this right on such a deep level that it's preposterous
Now reports are that the shooter may have used a "trigger crank" a legal device to make automatic weapons fire faster. Are these accessories supposedly constitutionally protected as well??
This guy was able to shoot over 600 people. It seems likely at this point he was able to get the equipment to do so legally. We used to have an assault weapons ban in this country. Guess which President allowed it to expire?? That's right....George W. Bush.
The problem is more the culture than the weapons. Look at other others countries where gun ownership is common, yet manage to be comparable to non-gun right countries with shootings.
@bob_veng the idea that a country has to have a single culturally homogenous group within it seems very odd. There are virtually no countries in the world that would fulfil that qualification currently and those that wish to do it (like Burma) are not models of democracy.
However, Catalonia isn't simply an administrative district anyway - it has a separate language and cultural tradition to the rest of Spain and there have been moves to seek independence for the region for at least a century. The region is also defined in Spanish law as a nation (in the revised Statute of Autonomy passed into law in August 2006).
As for the referendum I already said I didn't think it should be binding. I'm sure that the Catalan government would also agree with that - if the Spanish government agreed to hold a proper process, instead of doing everything they can to prevent that. I think you referred to the idea previously of a referendum seeking a referendum. In my view that's what this constitutes - it demonstrates that there is sufficient support for the idea that it should now be properly considered in a democratic fashion.
You also referred to the situation in Scotland. In that case there were also no provisions within UK law for secession, but that didn't prevent the Scottish and UK government working together to create them. The same would be perfectly possible in Spain given the political will.
My understanding of democracy is that ultimately it's a form of government with the consent of the people ruled. As referred to earlier that doesn't mean everyone needs to support every decision, but there need to be checks and balances to ensure that doesn't undermine the need for consent. One of those checks is the right to self-determination - preventing the situation where part of a country can be exploited by other parts over-ruling it through the operation of 'democracy'.
i'm not interested in debating this any longer in the absence of clarity of who the subject of self-determination is in the context of this specific referendum. i'm saying it's NOT an ethnic criteria, but it might as well be. i can't say that it's not definitively, and i think no one can, however IF it is NOT, and since we'd rather have it be something else (if it is, the separatists will not succeed in this era of western history, maybe in some very different, generally bleaker future), we should make an honest attempt to discover what it could be. to say that it's simply the permanent residents of catalonia glosses over the fact that every resident of catalonia had a right, a legal and a moral right to boycott the referendum because it was unconstitutional. ...those guys were not self-determining yesterday. they were just happy to remain whatever they were. they could have said "no" but they boycotted the referendum because they don't want to be part of the separatist constituency and lend legitimacy to the referendum, which was announced to be binding (you can't change that after the fact). that means that the separatists don't have a right, by any measure (except for the mentioned ethno criteria blood + soil = nation state) to take land from their current country and to make them subjects of their new country, it means taking their freedom away from them. this has happened in europe and it is known to cause wars.
scotland is different because it is a constituency that CAN secede legally and that binds people there in a polity which is called upon to vote on the issue. when you don't show up you can't say "i boycotted". you not showing up only means that you didn't show up, and you're happy with letting other people decide. incidenally turnout in scotland was astronomical compared to catalonia because there isn't this crisis of legitimacy
There is no debate necessary. If enough people in an area, whether they have any sort of common ancestry or not, decide that they do not want to be part of the larger nation in which they currently reside then they may choose to withdraw/secede and become independent. Yes, the main nation will probably respond with the military to say "no, you are not independent" but they can still do it if they want to. You don't have to like that fact and you don't have to agree with it, but it remains a *fact*.
@jjstraka34 As far as I know he did obtain all his weapons legally; BATFE is expediting a trace on the weapons found at the scene and at his residence. A sufficiently skilled gunsmith can transform any semi-automatic weapon into fully automatic pretty quickly--I know people who can do it.
The "assault weapons ban" you mention was never more than an inconvenience to some people. If you fill out the proper paperwork, pay all the extra fees, jump through all the hoops, etc. you can legally purchase weapons which might make your neighbors drop their coffee cups. Given that there is no evidence at this time that this shooter had a history of mental illness, had no history of violence (neither police in Florida nor Nevada had any "contact" with the shooter prior to this event), and did not have a social media profile containing extreme viewpoints, exactly which sort of restrictive gun law would have prevented him from obtaining all these weapons? The only flag which might have alerted anyone to him would be if he purchased multiple weapons in a relatively short amount of time.
That's the curious thing about self-determination and democracy. I have no opinion on the Catalonia issue; in this post, I'm speaking in general terms.
By definition, a democracy is majority rule. But it has to be a majority of a certain, defined group of people (you need to define who gets to vote, and who is governed by that vote). Those majority decisions are binding on the whole population, including the minority opposition. The rationale is that the majority should outweigh the minority (though there should be limits on what the majority can do). The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.
But if the minority decides to leave, does the majority have the power to veto it? If the answer is yes, then it's illegal for a province to declare independence. But I'm pretty sure we can all think of at least one time when a province was justified in leaving the mother country.
If the answer is no, however, then you're giving the minority the power to opt out of majority rule--to opt out of the very premise of democracy, that political power must come from the will of the people. If the will of the people grants no real power, there is no real democracy.
Democracy is majority rule within a state's borders. But who gets to decide what those borders should be? Do we have to stick with our existing borders indefinitely? Why would our existing borders, themselves, the product of centuries of change, be the best? Or can we, or should we, change them over time? And if borders are subject to change, what should be our criteria for changing them?
If there is no limit on majority rule, self-determination is impossible for any group of people who wants to be independent.
If there is no limit on self-determination, majority rule is impossible because people can simply opt out of it.
I'm sure we can agree that a single random yahoo shouldn't be able to declare independence from all nations and laws, and give him or herself all the rights of a nation-state. And I'm sure we can agree that there are times when declaring independence is necessary to protect a province from a hostile mother country. But between those two extremes, where do we draw the line?
@semiticgod That line depends entirely upon the circumstances. The Republic of Texas, nestled in their hobbit holes in the Davis Mountains, want Texas to secede and become its own nation again. This will never occur because there is no overwhelming need for it to happen--the citizens of Texas are not being abused by the United States. The Kurds in the north of Iraq, though, have suffered a history of abuse--they definitely have the right to vote to withdraw from the larger country and form Kurdistan for themselves.
I do not think Catalonia has suffered that sort of abuse from the hands of Spain and so the stated desire to become independent might be an overreaction, but now that the problem has actualized it will not go away any time soon. Resentment will build on both sides until it erupts into violence. I always return to the analogy of the failed marriage--when you both realize that your differences are irreconcilable you become faced with a choice: stay and suffer under the same roof as that other person or split to go your own ways and seek happiness.
There is no debate necessary. If enough people in an area, whether they have any sort of common ancestry or not, decide that they do not want to be part of the larger nation in which they currently reside then they may choose to withdraw/secede and become independent. Yes, the main nation will probably respond with the military to say "no, you are not independent" but they can still do it if they want to. You don't have to like that fact and you don't have to agree with it, but it remains a *fact*.
@jjstraka34 As far as I know he did obtain all his weapons legally; BATFE is expediting a trace on the weapons found at the scene and at his residence. A sufficiently skilled gunsmith can transform any semi-automatic weapon into fully automatic pretty quickly--I know people who can do it.
The "assault weapons ban" you mention was never more than an inconvenience to some people. If you fill out the proper paperwork, pay all the extra fees, jump through all the hoops, etc. you can legally purchase weapons which might make your neighbors drop their coffee cups. Given that there is no evidence at this time that this shooter had a history of mental illness, had no history of violence (neither police in Florida nor Nevada had any "contact" with the shooter prior to this event), and did not have a social media profile containing extreme viewpoints, exactly which sort of restrictive gun law would have prevented him from obtaining all these weapons? The only flag which might have alerted anyone to him would be if he purchased multiple weapons in a relatively short amount of time.
Apparently they found 19 weapons in the hotel room. How do you haul up a dozen bags to a 32nd floor hotel room in Vegas without being noticed?? When did he purchase them?? If they were all purchased within a short period of time, that would be the kind of thing a national database would flag as a sign someone may be about to go over the edge.
Also, Tom Petty died. October 2nd 2017 will not be remembered fondly by anyone. To tie that into politics, I remember reading this story when it was published. An all-time great and a class act:
I'm sure we can agree that a single random yahoo shouldn't be able to declare independence from all nations and laws, and give him or herself all the rights of a nation-state. And I'm sure we can agree that there are times when declaring independence is necessary to protect a province from a hostile mother country. But between those two extremes, where do we draw the line?
I agree that's the right question. I've been involved to some extent in a similar issue over local government reorganisation in England. The body responsible for conducting the review published guidelines on what areas would look like that were appropriate for setting up with unitary local government. On population for instance an area was typically expected to have between 150,000 and 250,000 people, but that was subject to other factors as well. The County of Rutland with a population of only 38,000 for instance was created as a unitary authority in recognition of the extremely strong identity of the area.
There have been some attempts to bring forward similar guidance on what factors could determine whether it would be appropriate for a new independent country to be created, but to date it's proved too politically challenging to do that. I think though it would be a good idea and help encourage debate rather than violence as the way forward.
Comments
Wait no, it's not shocking at all most of us figured this out years ago.
It is *always* legal for a group of people in a region to want to become independent from whatever nation of which they are currently a part. Spain's crackdown will teach the people longing for Catalonian independence that the legitimate path will not give them what they want;, thus, some of them will turn into violent separatists.
re: Las Vegas
The world is not a safe place--random violence can happen in any place at any time. This guy was definitely a lone wolf but he didn't just "snap" all of a sudden--no, what we are going to find out over the next week is that there were indicators that the people in his life probably saw but ignored or misinterpreted (presuming he had anyone in his life). What is interesting, though, is that people express care about what happened in Las Vegas but only because it all happened at once. 524 people have been killed in Chicago this year but that doesn't ruffle any feathers because most people conclude "that's life in the big city", which is just another way of saying "it's all part of the plan, even if the plan in horrible". Unlike the shooting in Nashville, where a conceal-carry person was able to retrieve their weapon and confront the attacker to prevent more loss of life, this shooter was across the street and 32 floors up--no amount of guns in the hands of people on the ground would have made a difference.
re: Supreme Court
The SCOTUS is back in session; high profile cases this session will include the new travel ban, immigration, voting rights/gerrymandering voting districts, religious liberty vs. personal liberty (yes, the wedding cake case is *still* being dragged out in court), and cell phone privacy (do police need a warrant to track your cell phone location as your device pings from tower to tower? the argument is that location information has already been given to a third party--the providers and operators of the towers--and so it isn't "your" data any more). Also, the questions remain as to whether Kennedy and Ginsberg may retire this year, which would give Trump two appointments.
I suspect that when many people hear "Puerto Rico" for some reason they think "Mexico", which is not only illogical but incorrect. Demographically, Puerto Rico is 75.8% white--most people's ancestors there came directly from Spain--so why anyone thinks that the back-and-forth bickering between Trump and the local leadership is about "people of color" is laughable. The people in Puerto Rico aren't lazy--only 5% of the island has electricity at this time and most are still trying to figure out where they will obtain today's clean food and water. This is plenty of aid on the ground, but a lot of it is still stuck in shipping containers at the ports--the on-the-ground logistics of distribution is being delayed by a lack of people-power, not because of lethargy.
edit: it would have been wise to create a referendum about a referendum. the catalans know this. but they failed to make this referendum. instead some politicians, cheaply, drafted a declaration https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catalan_Declaration_of_Sovereignty
of course a simple declaration wouldn't do...
A reminder that one political party in this country is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the NRA, and the other one isn't.
As to what is the will of Catalonia I agree that this referendum should not be seen as the final word. However, if the Spanish government tries to ignore it (as opposed to setting up an agreed process to do it properly) they are likely to provoke considerable unrest. The stated turn out of 42% actually seems pretty high to me. Given that the Spanish government was forcibly closing and occupying polling stations the fact that so many people were willing to take the risk of voting suggests to me there is a genuine mandate there.
Major and binding political decisions are taken within democracies all the time - and rarely will such decisions be by a majority of people. Trump for instance was voted for by around 30% of the electorate, while Brexit was supported by about 38%. It's not a requirement for democracy to work well that a majority of people support all decisions. It is a requirement, however, that opportunities are offered to have your say about the issues as well as vote. That's what is dangerous about the actions of the Spanish government - they are upholding the 'rule of law' at the expense of democracy.
Civilians shouldn't have access to assualt rifles. If we decide to live in a country where we allow that (and we do and have), then something lile Las Vegas is going to happen 3 or 4 times a year in perpetuity. No other developed country even remotely approaches the United States in the amount of gun violence and mass shootings. No one else is even in the running.
- not borders (administrative division doesn't create those borders)
- not a final word and not a starting word. it's a failed act of unconstitutional adventurism. rather than ignoring it spain will punish it and the EU will consent because that's the legal and political doctrine and tradition there.
- to suggest that a minority in a territory could justifiably secede and determine the statehood of their territory is bad. it's an idea opposed to modern political freedoms
- american presidential elections and the american constitution belong to a different political tradition. the lack of popular support in american elections is considered a big problem for us democracy. this has nothing to do with referenda in europe which are 1 person 1 vote
- brexit is ridiculous and the voting system that led to it is backwards and shameful. the situation in uk is now best qualified as a constitutional crisis
I do not defend the actions of the leadership of the Catalonians--some of those leaders are probably self-promoted, in any event--but the larger problem now becomes what I described: some die-hard true believers will pick up molotovs since their votes aren't going to count. Although I fully support the right of people to own guns, there is no legitimate reason that a private citizen needs a silencer (which should be called "suppressors" for the sake of accuracy). The only people who need those are military snipers on assignment and--let's be truthful here--intelligence operatives who might need to kill someone as part of a mission. (yes, our government has assassins on its payroll--if you think they don't then you are hopelessly naive) I do also support conceal carry across State lines, though--the "full faith and credit" clause, the same feature which allows my Texas driver's license to be legal in Missouri, means that my Texas conceal carry license should also be legal in every other State.
I am no fan of the NRA, though. For years they fought tooth and nail to prevent any sort of "gun owner database"...only to find out that they had been keeping their own such database for the purposes of mailing flyers or fundraising purposes. Ironic hypocrisy is ironic.
Anyway...so far there does not appear to be any police history on the shooter, who lived in a small town northeast of Las Vegas (on the Arizona-Nevada border). There were other weapons at the residence but no indication yet as to what set him off.
what gives the catalan government right to say that the referendum is binding regardless of voter turnout? (they said this before the police intervention) they don't have this right on such a deep level that it's preposterous
This guy was able to shoot over 600 people. It seems likely at this point he was able to get the equipment to do so legally. We used to have an assault weapons ban in this country. Guess which President allowed it to expire?? That's right....George W. Bush.
However, Catalonia isn't simply an administrative district anyway - it has a separate language and cultural tradition to the rest of Spain and there have been moves to seek independence for the region for at least a century. The region is also defined in Spanish law as a nation (in the revised Statute of Autonomy passed into law in August 2006).
As for the referendum I already said I didn't think it should be binding. I'm sure that the Catalan government would also agree with that - if the Spanish government agreed to hold a proper process, instead of doing everything they can to prevent that. I think you referred to the idea previously of a referendum seeking a referendum. In my view that's what this constitutes - it demonstrates that there is sufficient support for the idea that it should now be properly considered in a democratic fashion.
You also referred to the situation in Scotland. In that case there were also no provisions within UK law for secession, but that didn't prevent the Scottish and UK government working together to create them. The same would be perfectly possible in Spain given the political will.
My understanding of democracy is that ultimately it's a form of government with the consent of the people ruled. As referred to earlier that doesn't mean everyone needs to support every decision, but there need to be checks and balances to ensure that doesn't undermine the need for consent. One of those checks is the right to self-determination - preventing the situation where part of a country can be exploited by other parts over-ruling it through the operation of 'democracy'.
...those guys were not self-determining yesterday. they were just happy to remain whatever they were. they could have said "no" but they boycotted the referendum because they don't want to be part of the separatist constituency and lend legitimacy to the referendum, which was announced to be binding (you can't change that after the fact). that means that the separatists don't have a right, by any measure (except for the mentioned ethno criteria blood + soil = nation state) to take land from their current country and to make them subjects of their new country, it means taking their freedom away from them. this has happened in europe and it is known to cause wars.
scotland is different because it is a constituency that CAN secede legally and that binds people there in a polity which is called upon to vote on the issue. when you don't show up you can't say "i boycotted". you not showing up only means that you didn't show up, and you're happy with letting other people decide. incidenally turnout in scotland was astronomical compared to catalonia because there isn't this crisis of legitimacy
@jjstraka34 As far as I know he did obtain all his weapons legally; BATFE is expediting a trace on the weapons found at the scene and at his residence. A sufficiently skilled gunsmith can transform any semi-automatic weapon into fully automatic pretty quickly--I know people who can do it.
The "assault weapons ban" you mention was never more than an inconvenience to some people. If you fill out the proper paperwork, pay all the extra fees, jump through all the hoops, etc. you can legally purchase weapons which might make your neighbors drop their coffee cups. Given that there is no evidence at this time that this shooter had a history of mental illness, had no history of violence (neither police in Florida nor Nevada had any "contact" with the shooter prior to this event), and did not have a social media profile containing extreme viewpoints, exactly which sort of restrictive gun law would have prevented him from obtaining all these weapons? The only flag which might have alerted anyone to him would be if he purchased multiple weapons in a relatively short amount of time.
By definition, a democracy is majority rule. But it has to be a majority of a certain, defined group of people (you need to define who gets to vote, and who is governed by that vote). Those majority decisions are binding on the whole population, including the minority opposition. The rationale is that the majority should outweigh the minority (though there should be limits on what the majority can do). The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.
But if the minority decides to leave, does the majority have the power to veto it? If the answer is yes, then it's illegal for a province to declare independence. But I'm pretty sure we can all think of at least one time when a province was justified in leaving the mother country.
If the answer is no, however, then you're giving the minority the power to opt out of majority rule--to opt out of the very premise of democracy, that political power must come from the will of the people. If the will of the people grants no real power, there is no real democracy.
Democracy is majority rule within a state's borders. But who gets to decide what those borders should be? Do we have to stick with our existing borders indefinitely? Why would our existing borders, themselves, the product of centuries of change, be the best? Or can we, or should we, change them over time? And if borders are subject to change, what should be our criteria for changing them?
If there is no limit on majority rule, self-determination is impossible for any group of people who wants to be independent.
If there is no limit on self-determination, majority rule is impossible because people can simply opt out of it.
I'm sure we can agree that a single random yahoo shouldn't be able to declare independence from all nations and laws, and give him or herself all the rights of a nation-state. And I'm sure we can agree that there are times when declaring independence is necessary to protect a province from a hostile mother country. But between those two extremes, where do we draw the line?
I do not think Catalonia has suffered that sort of abuse from the hands of Spain and so the stated desire to become independent might be an overreaction, but now that the problem has actualized it will not go away any time soon. Resentment will build on both sides until it erupts into violence. I always return to the analogy of the failed marriage--when you both realize that your differences are irreconcilable you become faced with a choice: stay and suffer under the same roof as that other person or split to go your own ways and seek happiness.
We could never do that to them.
Yet more low-hanging fruit...
Also, Tom Petty died. October 2nd 2017 will not be remembered fondly by anyone. To tie that into politics, I remember reading this story when it was published. An all-time great and a class act:
There have been some attempts to bring forward similar guidance on what factors could determine whether it would be appropriate for a new independent country to be created, but to date it's proved too politically challenging to do that. I think though it would be a good idea and help encourage debate rather than violence as the way forward.