all 9 comments

[–]magnora7[S] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

Spain just will not let go. I wonder what is at stake for Spain, what do they really lose by letting Catalonia become more independent?

It seems the situation has come to an impasse. Hopefully there is no further escalation and a solution is found that can benefit both parties.

[–]an-arkhos 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

The main reason Spain is taking a harsh stance against Catalonia is that they have several other regions who could follow the example of a successful Catalonian secession.

Many nations are hostile towards secession movements but especially nations who have or had a empire are aggressively protecting the remains of their territory.

In order for governments/elite to remain in power it is vitally important to them nations states borders are beyond the boundaries of social and cultural cohesion, while near homogenizes societies are happier they are much harder to control as the "divide and conquer" tool is not available on a more unified peoples.

I support any and all movements for independence, not their methods or ideology but the idea everyone deserves their independence, not just as part of a group but ultimately as a individuals.

[–]magnora7[S] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

That's a good point, that there are other regions that want the same.

However at some point I feel their hand will be forced, much like Britain was forced to grant independence to all those former colonies, after the movement started. The few that remained looked really bad, so they were granted official independence with some under-the-table deals to keep the benefits Britain enjoys largely intact. Spain could've put themselves in a similarly advantageous position, but instead they chose to go hard-line and now they may wind up with nothing if Catalonia actually leaves.

Good point about the divide and conquer too. Having several different types of people fighting to maintain control is a great way to keep people distracted and fighting over meaningless crap, while both sides have their lives run by the same groups of people, some without even realizing it.

[–]Node 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

the idea everyone deserves their independence

It has a good sound to it, but how does that play out in reality? Every individual on their own with no alliances? (the logical result)

Once you begin forming alliances with other humans, you're no longer independent. Basic example of this is finding a mate. Now you've created your own "mini-state". Have kids, and now you need laws and enforcement.

A species needs at least this level of interdependence to survive, so total independence is clearly out. So is the family unit the best level of independence? Them against the world? Perhaps a village? Maybe a few villages? A state? A country?

Note: I somewhat agree with the idea of local control over ones affairs, with 'local' being roughly one days walking distance. It was a mistake to advance technology to the point where local control no longer works.

[–]an-arkhos 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

I think your misunderstanding, everyone deserves to be independent does not mean everyone wants to be, will be, or should be, nor should independence be mistaken for being self sufficient.

and just because your independent does not mean you cannot trade or make other agreements, being independent is about making your own decisions vs decisions that effect you being made by other people.

[–]Node 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

But many decisions by other people will necessarily affect you. The color your neighbor paints their house will affect your property values. Decisions by random people to move to your town affect how much water you'll have, how much space will be available for you in public spaces, and on and on. If food store owners decided your area is no longer safe enough, they'll all leave and how far will you drive for food?

Your "independent" clothing choices will affect decisions made by buyers. Small influence from you alone, but the aggregate drives the clothing and fashion industries.

I think I see what you're getting at, and that used to work in the old days. Now, there are too many people, and the ramifications of that make actual independence difficult, if not impossible. I agree that independence is highly desirable, but our society took the overpopulation road over my objections.

[–]an-arkhos 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Why use different logic for economics and politics? More people, more companies, more different products, more choices, yet somehow on the political spectrum the increase in population should lead to less choices and less independent fractions?

Sorry to cut it short but i got 2 run

[–]format 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Yes definitely....i feel the terms of Federalism should be reviewed...A part of a state should be allowed to moved if so wants to maximize the exploitation of it resources to the betterment of its people, why will a parent state put a stop?

[–]magnora7[S] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Exactly. And the answer is because the powerful want to control ever more and more. Greed is the main driving force behind ever-larger collectivization of power, almost always.