It is unfortunate that the institutions with the greatest power and influence over our lives are the hardest to reform, and, by dint of their monopoly on force, nearly impossible to replace. See the bid for Catalan independence in 2017. If human beings don't have a right to start a new government, then they effectively do not have a right to self-representstion. If Catalan doesn't want to part of Spain, but they're forced to remain (the politicians who declared independence in 2017 are either in jail or in exile), the fact that they have a 16% say in how Spain is run is not democracy. After all, that means the Spaniards have an 84% say in how this captive region is run. That's just imperialism with extra steps.
The 2017 event in Catalonia was a slow-motion, low-cost coup d’etat, dressed as a democratic movement, and an event the European Union already warned was illegal. The result is that second-tier Catalan politicians and activists are now in jail.
The fact that something is illegal doesn't really address the issue of renewing/maintaining the legitimacy of a social organization. If anything saying that something is illegitimate or unjust because it is illegal suggests that one benefits from the status quo.
> vote for a party that legitimately changes the law through the defined channels
So what if no party is willing to do that? Gay marriage in many Western countries has consistently had over 50% support going back a long time[0], despite overwhelming polling, no elected governments on Earth were willing to change it except in the last few years. This is the same for other issues like marijuana decriminalisation. By your measure of legitimate change: Who does an American vote for to stop the 20 year war in Afghanistan? [1]
1. there are opaque ballot boxes,
2. there are no official ballots or envelopes,
3. the electoral census is hosted on online servers,
4. there is no electoral board, and
5. there is no counting system.
That doesn't really work in this case though. A majority in the Catalan parliament voted for the independence referendum but it was disallowed by Spanish law. Support for Catalan independence is necessarily going to be of limited interest to voters outside of Catalonia, so changing the law at the Spanish level isn't something Catalan's can really hope to achieve.
Your "Texas vs. Federal Government" argument is weak:
1. The local Catalan parliament is not above any national law. Your argument reminds me of the Texas Government vs any US Govt.
2. The pro-independence seats in parliament in Catalonia is a voter minority... in Catalonia. Check your math.
Most secessions are illegal, the US from Britain, Texas and California from Mexico. I personally don’t see anything wrong with Texas becoming independent from the US should it choose to. (Confederate secession was wrong because it was about perpetuating slavery.)
The referendum law was passed by a majority of members of the Catalan parliament. It just seems very odd that Spain would not work on a mutually acceptable structure for an independence vote. Especially if a majority of people would vote against it!
Laws and their use are not inherently just, legitimate, necessary, effective or reflective of society. Often laws provide advantges to segments of society at a cost for other segments. In that case we must evaluate whether the law is just or necessary. If the segment of society that benefits unnecessarily or unjustly from the law refuses to be held accountable, then civil disobedience by the affected segment is to be expected. There are countless instances of social and legal change achieved through disobedience instead of "following the law".
"In that case we must evaluate whether the law is just or necessary"
It is a common view that a degree of redistribution is necessary and desirable, and the social benefits are rather clear.
Even then, there are some spectacular failures at penalizing tax evasion. There are known loopholes in the Spanish and EU tax system that remain unclosed because...? Also, for comparison I'd like to point out that the fiscal amnesty enacted by the Popular Party in 2012 was evidently unconstitutional, but somehow it was not until 2017 that the Constitutional Court settled the issue. It took this court about two hours to reach a conclusion regarding Catalan independence laws.
So if the goal is to have a progressive tax system, but political parties and the courts fail at even following the current laws, what should a reformer aim at? We've seen multiple leaks about tax evaders (Falcianni, Panama papers). The information contained in those leaks was illegally obtained. Does that mean they were also unjust and illegitimate, and therefore disregarded or condemned?
Not sure how these facts fit in your legalist perspective, and I don't understand the insistence in equating legality with justice, unless, as I said, one is benefiting economically and culturally from unjust laws, but doesn't want to feel like the bad guy. "Are we the baddies?"
You tell me how those who do not want independence "benefits unnecessarily" from such. Curious to know what civil liberties those who seek independence are being taken away from them.
It's not quite so black and white, though, because if you say that people have the unlimited right to form their own country, then where does that right end? Does a city, or a small group of people, or a single person have the right to declare themselves an independent country? What about when the cause itself is ambiguous or outright unjust (i.e. the South in the American Civil War)?
That's why I think the cause itself and the claimed grievances have to be considered and are the most important part of the discussion.
I’ve had this idea for a few years, although I’ve been calling it a virtual country rather than a cloud country. Not sure if I love the name cloud, but I’m biased! Help
- The creation of new subreddits. Opaque and off-putting vocabulary, like WSB's.
- The Amish system of communal aid and health care.
- American utopian communities, like the Oneida community.
- The Islamic State, and its publication Dabiq.
- 70s-90s subcultures, e.g. hippies and punks.
- The Mormon Church.
A number of properties seem useful:
- Barriers to entry. E.g. a language (resurrect a dead one, like Gaelic or Hebrew, as done by previous nationalist movements? Or Arabic, as was encouraged by Dabiq? I see possibilities for indigenous languages (e.g. there is a fringe neo-Aztec movement), for Latin, for Sanskrit, and for a reverse-engineered PIE).
- A coordinating media apparatus (again, Dabiq is a good example).
- Risk-pooling with defenses against free-riding (see the Amish).
- Significant exclusive advantages to members. (The Roman system of earned citizenship is one example.)
- A strong reproductive capacity, whether purely memetic (LGBTQ movement), or biological. In the latter case it's vital that the ideology minimize within-group gender conflict (ideally without domination), and assist productive heterosexual union. Consider the symbol of the upturned triangle (male) and downturned triangle (female) interpenetrating to form a union with new symmetries; in some cultures this is the "Star of David", but it is also known outside those cultures. This might be achieved through separate (but interacting) male and female aspects of the culture, instead of through a completely unisex culture. It needs to achieve r > 2.1 or it's dead in the water.
- Mechanisms of self-defense, ranging from passive denial of benefits (blacklisting), to coordinated harassment (Twitter), to limited and mostly symbolic violence (parades, protests, street riots), to real organized violence (militias). It's a good sign if people are afraid to criticize symbols of your tribe (see Charlie Hebdo). Though insularity, stealth, and non-aggression -- a purely defensive strategy -- might get you reasonably far if you can quietly obtain resources.
- A moral narrative about the inherent goodness and righteousness of your people and your cause. The weakest would be a pluralistic "we have a right to exist too"; the strongest is "we are morally superior" -- whether because you are the "Master Race", or "chosen by God", or those most downtrodden and deserving of justice, or those with the best principle ("liberty"). But the first step of war is always demoralization of the enemy, so you can't neglect this. Fake corporate values don't work. Cynically, the moral case has to be a stealth restatement of the interests of the group members.
- An immune system capable of dealing with agent provocateurs, whether by embracing them ("Nothing is too radical!"), or by ejecting those who violate some more nuanced concept of "good".
Balaji recently said he was in favor of reducing military capacity. Whether that's a good idea or not, it shows that his preference with a cloud country is a non-violent one.
One interesting aspect of a cloud country, or networked state, is that it would be distributed/decentralized. In theory it would be hard to attack in the real world as there may not be traditional borders at all. If if distributed globally it's certainly resistant to nuclear type attacks. A country with a capital "in the cloud" has a digital defensive structure similar to the Củ Chi tunnels from the Vietnam war.
Oh, certainly, I am sure Balaji would eschew violence; he wouldn't even bring up the topic. And violence would go against the core nonaggression principle of libertarianism.
However, if his "county" is successful, it will need some ability to deter aggression, or it will need to declare fealty to one or more stronger forces.
The Internet is also pretty centralized these days. Get a few CDNs and cloud service providers on-side and you can shut things down, unless it's extremely P2P from the beginning (and even then, that's a cat and mouse game that e.g. filesharing P2P has lost).
To agree with your reproduction points, I'd bring to attention the Lesbian-only women communes started during the height of the feminist movement that are now dying out with hardly anyone to continue the ideology.
I wasn't aware of those communes. If you have specific examples I'd be curious. Personally I was thinking of the 19th century Shaker movement, which included both women and men, practiced celibacy, and died out.
