What is Democracy

[MrFun]

A democracy is when you can explode and troll an Apolytoner's husband who politely asked for technical help with a computer problem.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris
You're missing the point here. The legitimacy of the chief comes from the fact that he is believed to have the necessary qualities to achieve an objecive deemed good.

Who the hell seeks an objecitve deemed bad for them? He has the qualities assumed to achieve THE GOAL, which is survival and propegation of the species. There hardly is any moral choice being made here.

It depends. One could willingly choose a chief because of his strength. Or he could be afraid of him, in which case there's no legitimacy.

There is no difference. The basis of the legitimacy here is the fact that one is strong enought to be Chief whether the other want it or not. That displays his superiority in one necessary field of survival.

[Fake Boris]

False. First, if someone has been labeled the legitimate force, then that sentence is simply a statement of fact _there is a legitimate power, and you will do as they say.

What's the difference between "I should obey an illegitimate power" and "I should obey a legitimate power"? If you claim that the second is valid but not the first, you're making a moral statement. In fact, as soon as an 'ought-statement' is being given a value (true or false) it becomes moral. Get used to it. And you said you've been correcting essays at Uni?


Maybe I'll come back later if I can bother for the rest. As usual, my objections have not been adresses by logical arguments but by another round of petition of principles.

One, that two states are fundamentally different from two indvidual human beings. Now, if this escapes you, this is your problem.

How so? According to you, there is no essential difference between a private organization and a State. A State is merely a succesfull private organization. Again you don't get my point. States exist as numerous entities because NO ONE is powerful enough to form them by themselves alone, and not because it is in their ESSENCE to be a public organization. In theory, if someone had the power to get the monopoly of violence over the entire world by his might alone, he could form a state that considers himself as the only citizen, and the others as 'Slaves', non-humans.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris


What's the difference between "I should obey an illegitimate power" and "I should obey a legitimate power"? If you claim that the second is valid but not the first, you're making a moral statement. In fact, as soon as an 'ought-statement' is being given a value (true or false) it becomes moral. Get used to it. And you said you've been correcting essays at Uni?

Both are valid-only YOU are claiming one is invalid, not I. NOtice as well you changed terms from I shall to I ought. Unless for you there i no differenc,e and iN that case we need to refer you to a dictionary.

How so? According to you, there is no essential difference between a private organization and a State.

Nowhere did I say this. It would behove you to actually read arguements as given, not by through your own prism of asumptions and biases.

A State is merely a succesfull private organization. Again you don't get my point. States exist as numerous entities because NO ONE is powerful enough to form them by themselves alone, and not because it is in their ESSENCE to be a public organization.

Well, this is your problem, since you are attempting to introduce some new definition of private vs Public that seemingly has nothing to do with reality or the english language. Suffice it to say that the Public sphere predates the private sphere.

In theory, if someone had the power to get the monopoly of violence over the entire world by his might alone, he could form a state that considers himself as the only citizen, and the others as 'Slaves', non-humans.

Yes, someone could. Your point? Are you saying someone could not? As opposed to someone should not?

Newsflash: ought and shall, should and would ARE NOT THE SAME THING.

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Of course it is. And do you believe that, say, Louis XIV's France was an illegitimate government because it did not inlcude all the citizens over which it holds the monopoly of violence? Don't be silly.

Look at what France did to its kings after centuries of abuse. For sure they were legitimate. Don't be a moron yourself.

Actually it isn't. It's a true, factual statement. You are failing the distinction from the descriptive and the normative. "Might makes right" is a descriptive, not a moral statement, because I've never argued that that is the way it SHOULD be.

So, 'legitimacy' is not an absolute - it would be superceded by a valid moral statement? In both cases you lose. You answer "no" and, whether you like it or not, it becomes a moral statement because it is superior to any statement. You answer "yes", and then, for obvious reasons, you've lost the whole debate. Though I don't expect you to see light anytime soon.

Besides, I remember you saying that it is one's duty to follow the moral code of his society. Are you withdrawing this statement? That would be most wise of you, unless you want to look like a fool again.

If you've read Nietzsche you realize this search for 'truth' by the philosopher is a bunch of bunk. It is merely his version of the truth and he has already decided what he wants to get at.

So what? Who cares if a monkey takes a typewriter and writes Macbeth? Does that make it less Macbeth? What Nietzsche fails to mention is that philosophy made prodigious leaps after his death [OK EDIT, just realized how silly that was: made progress before him, and probably will after], in all subdisciplines, and that will probably go on for a good bunch of decades. I don't care what someone is getting at, as long as his theories survive objections.

[Fake Boris]

Nowhere did I say this. It would behove you to actually read arguements as given, not by through your own prism of asumptions and biases.

Well, this is your problem, since you are attempting to introduce some new definition of private vs Public that seemingly has nothing to do with reality or the english language. Suffice it to say that the Public sphere predates the private sphere.

I have the ability to infer conclusions from premices. Any organization can gain a violence monopoly, right? What makes the difference between private interests and public ones (as in "public affairs, res publica)?

If a state's legitimacy does not originate from its citizens, as you claim, that pretty much fits the bill for 'private interests'. The latter has been historically disproven by the Roman Latifundia and the renowned American neutrality towards political donators.

In theory, if someone had the power to get the monopoly of violence over the entire world by his might alone, he could form a state that considers himself as the only citizen, and the others as 'Slaves', non-humans.

Yes, someone could. Your point? Are you saying someone could not? As opposed to someone should not?

Gee, at least you're trying so I'll give you a chance. I was pointing out that, according to what you've been saying, there can't be any difference between an individual and a state...

First, democracy by definitions can't be carried out by one person. How could you possibly have just one citizen? That billion other people might have a say about it. See, no one human being can enforce his power over others-he must have the tacit complicity of thousands to do it, willing to do his bidding for their own reasons.

The others don't have a say about it. As I already said, it's an hypothetical situation in which they can't. So, here comes the problem: you do realize that not all majorities are democratic, right? For a majority to be democratic, it must have arisen from a debate in which the minority had a say.

All mayorities are democratic. That is the point of democracy-that the choice is made by the mayority, and not an exclusive group.

We're progressing. If you are to be consistent, you'll revise this last statement. One must ask the question: when is it that a majority is an 'exclusive group', and when it is that it has arisen from a genuine democratic process? What if America annexes Canada and grants Canadians the right to vote? Is that democratic, or you do recognize that the legitimacy of the Canadian state has been violated? There are some rights that can't be granted, for the simple reason that they don't belong to the granter.

NOtice as well you changed terms from I shall to I ought. Unless for you there i no differenc,e and iN that case we need to refer you to a dictionary.

Newsflash: ought and shall, should and would ARE NOT THE SAME THING.

Ought: "Used to indicate obligation or duty: You ought to work harder than that."

Shall: "In formal style, Americans use shall to express an explicit obligation [...]" "In addition to its sense of obligation, shall also can convey high moral seriousness [...]"

Should: "Should is also used in all three persons to express duty or obligation (the equivalent of ought to)"

Hang your head in shame. Though these auxiliaries all have varying meanings depending on the context, I was OBVIOUSLY using them within the context of moral obligation, which all three can convey. As for would, I know the difference, and that's why I didn't use it.

What's the difference between "I should obey an illegitimate power" and "I should obey a legitimate power"? If you claim that the second is valid but not the first, you're making a moral statement. In fact, as soon as an 'ought-statement' is being given a value (true or false) it becomes moral.

Both are valid-only YOU are claiming one is invalid, not I.

Hint: a statement and its opposite cannot both be true at the same time. So tell me, what is the use for the word 'legitimacy', if it doesn't express a 'legitimate' moral statement? Have you been arguing all this time simply to acknowledge that legitimacy is a non-concept, one that doesn't hold any value? This is what I've come to think:

To some extent, the term is meaningless when it comes to the application of power. As someone who likes legitimacy, my answer is this: legitimacy is something built, accrued over time and based on how the masses see ones behavior. No brand new state can simply claim legitimacy unless:
1. It is simply a continuation of the old system under new management
2. It was brought to power by popular revolt
A government might gain power simply by ruthless force, but then it will have to build up its legitimacy over time.

I don't see where you're heading. So finally, you admit that a population living under the threat of force is not being ruled by a truly legitimate government? So it boils down to this:

-Might makes right is a true statement of facts, if you assume there's no intrinsic value to the law (in other words, as long as you recognize the possibility of a wrong right).

-Might must stem from consent; in fact, consent is at the root of might. Can we say that a might built on consent is therefore more 'right'?

-Then, if you accept the idea that people are morally bound to their word, 'legitimacy' built on consent becomes a truly morally binding statement? That 'I shall obey legitimate authorities' is true, while the opposite is false?

[Berzerker]

Imran -

Because you say so? Don't think so. Slavery is ownership of a person by another person.

Strange, you just said what I said but you disagree when I say it Ownership/slavery is not just an idea, it's an action taken against another (as you and I pointed out), no such action is required to be religious, hence the difference between religion and slavery. One can obviously choose to be religious and the definition of religion assumes a choice is being made, the definition of slavery precludes choice, that's why the word "bound" appears in it's definition.

The 'context' he provided was the Golden Rule had to conform to all the other stuff he said about God. So baseing a solely on the Golden Rule is silly. You can't have the context with the rest of the religious stuff, and we don't live in theocracies.

You don't need everything he said to understand the Golden Rule, only what he said about how we should treat others. Why do you assume we need to accept everything he said about "divine" matters to understand what the Golden Rule means? Does a belief or non-belief in Jesus as the son of God prevent someone from treating others the way they want to be treated? Of course not...

I'll take the the international relations definition... and if anyone is allowed to give the definitive definition on war it should be them.

Your definition is extrodinarily broad. Was the Hatfields vs. the McCoys a war? I think not.

Yes Imran, it was a war. So now Webster's New Collegiate doesn't qualify as a dictionary? Sheesh! Of course the definition is broad, it has a broad meaning.

But he isn't. Murder is unlawful killing... which is why he can't be charged with it! It wouldn't hurt to actually read my posts.

I do read your posts, I just disagree that a law must exist for murder to exist - the law derives from prior concepts, it doesn't invent them (and you chastise me for my alleged ignorance of the law's origins? ). People think first then make laws, not the other way around. How could Saddam be guilty of "crimes against humanity" when you claim his "crimes" weren't crimes because they were legal? If you say he was guilty of committing crimes against humanity, why does that statement preclude all the murders he committed when those murders are in fact listed among his crimes?

Uh huh... and yet international law doesn't care.

The US Congress cares.

If, sometime in the future, the US is occupied like Nazi Germany was, internation law, even that not signed by the US will be applied to it. Just like international law was applied to the Nazis at Nuremburg even though they never signed onto those provisions.

They did sign onto international laws, the Treaty of Versailles comes to mind as just one example.

You have an interesting notion of international law. Treaties are only one porition of international law. International law also gets made by custom and general practice. There are also those special customs (jus cogens) which cannot be treatied out of... for example you can make a treaty with country B permitting genocide.

And for countries without those customs and practices? According to you, 2 countries can make laws for another country. Did the US have a treaty with another country to permit the gemocide of Indians? Nope...

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

What is it that gives the majority in a true democracy the right to impose themselves on the minority.

'Cause there is more of them .

You probably meant to be joking, but that about resumes the shallowness of your position.

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by GePap
The issue today is that we conflate democracy with individual rights. You could have an oligarchy with individual rights as well-voting for your leader is only one possible right to have.

But wait... as far as I know, no system has the monopoly over any characteristic. That a democracy requires human rights doesn't imply an oligarchy can't recognize them.

[Fake Boris]

Imran and GePap have lost. They are a bunch of talentless poo lickers.

[MrFun]

No -- they're carrying out a tactical retreat until stronger reinforcement arrives . . . .


then, LOOK OUT, Oncle.

[Japher]

Actually, they wait until you got to sleep, spam the board with why they are right and you are wrong until the thread is jacked, and you come back and bring up the issue, and the reply "it was already decided that you were wrong"... typical

[GePap]

Sorry FakeBoris, but you endless parcel-post is obnoxious.

If a state's legitimacy does not originate from its citizens, as you claim, that pretty much fits the bill for 'private interests'. The latter has been historically disproven by the Roman Latifundia and the renowned American neutrality towards political donators

First, at the end of the post-what is that even supposed to mean? Nevermind... As for your first assertion-false. A State is inherently public-Even subjects' relation with their king is a public matter, not a private one. So stop butchering all the terms and making up stuff. It is a very poor way of debating.

The others don't have a say about it. As I already said, it's an hypothetical situation in which they can't. So, here comes the problem: you do realize that not all majorities are democratic, right? For a majority to be democratic, it must have arisen from a debate in which the minority had a say.

Sorry, but an utterly impossible hypothetical is invalid. I might as well argue about a hypothetical were all the human beings become ants...heck, it's oly hypothetical. There is no plausible way in whcih one person would rule everyone else singlehandedly.

We're progressing. If you are to be consistent, you'll revise this last statement. One must ask the question: when is it that a majority is an 'exclusive group', and when it is that it has arisen from a genuine democratic process? What if America annexes Canada and grants Canadians the right to vote? Is that democratic, or you do recognize that the legitimacy of the Canadian state has been violated? There are some rights that can't be granted, for the simple reason that they don't belong to the granter.

You are confusing issues massively-which is obviously your problem. Unless Canadians voted to become US citzens, no the annexation of Canada did not occur democratically. This is a different issue from the fact that any elections held in thie New North American state would certainly be democratic. Ex-Canadians would now simply be Americans. BUt democracy still exists.

Hint: a statement and its opposite cannot both be true at the same time. So tell me, what is the use for the word 'legitimacy', if it doesn't express a 'legitimate' moral statement? Have you been arguing all this time simply to acknowledge that legitimacy is a non-concept, one that doesn't hold any value? This is what I've come to think:

The word is useful in figuring out the amount of support a populace will give their government. A wholy unmoral issue. People will willingly obey what they see as legitimate and will need forceful reminders of the cost of disobedianece if they think the government is not legitimate. BUt as long as the state has a clear monopoly of violence it will continue to function. So the value of legitimacy for the ruler is to what extent people will of their own volition do as you want them to do, vs how much you will be forced to make them do what you want them to do. The value of legitimacy to the ruled is a sense that they know the rules and can form a sensible expectation of future behavior and what will and will not be allowed.

something you said to Imran:

So, 'legitimacy' is not an absolute - it would be superceded by a valid moral statement? In both cases you lose. You answer "no" and, whether you like it or not, it becomes a moral statement because it is superior to any statement. You answer "yes", and then, for obvious reasons, you've lost the whole debate. Though I don't expect you to see light anytime soon.

Besides, I remember you saying that it is one's duty to follow the moral code of his society. Are you withdrawing this statement? That would be most wise of you, unless you want to look like a fool again.

Man, you are lost. If he answers yes, what he is saying is that legitimacy is not meausred in morality, and that individuals may feel some moral imperative invalidates the legitimacy a state has built. If the whole of the populace feels this way, they can then overthrow the current state and set one which would incorporate the norms they seek into the system which will be labelled as legitimate.

There is no possible no answer, since legitimacy not being a moral issue in real life, it can't possibly be "overurled by a moral statement" in the way you mean that, anymore than saying "this car is blue" invalidates the statement "this car has two doors".

I don't see where you're heading. So finally, you admit that a population living under the threat of force is not being ruled by a truly legitimate government? So it boils down to this:

No. This distinction might be too difficult for you, but: they are being ruled by a government they do not see as legitimate. There is no such thing as "trully legitimate"- it is granted, it does not exist a priori.

-Might makes right is a true statement of facts, if you assume there's no intrinsic value to the law (in other words, as long as you recognize the possibility of a wrong right).

The value of law is to create order-it is a utalitarian excercise. So no, there is no intrinsic absolute value for law.

-Might must stem from consent; in fact, consent is at the root of might. Can we say that a might built on consent is therefore more 'right'?

Might may have many basis. BUt no single human can enslave many more without some sort of implicit or explicit understanding by all that the ruled will remain the ruled.

[quote]
-Then, if you accept the idea that people are morally bound to their word, 'legitimacy' built on consent becomes a truly morally binding statement? That 'I shall obey legitimate authorities' is true, while the opposite is false?[/q]

What is the opposite? I shall obey illegitimate authorities? The truth of that statement is created by the individual making it-if you look at your definition of shall. IN taht respect, any individual can feel bound to obey the authorities, legitimate or not.


You problem is clear-you think that some intrinsic value, some label of "legitimate" or "Illegitimate" can be given to a regime that would exist independent of the opinions of the mob. False. Each individual accesses the legitimacy of the powers ruling them-if a majority believe a government to be illegitimate then they can act to remove it. If they succeed, they can then attempt to create one they think will be legitimate to them.

Lets take the issue of iraq today. There is certainly a minority of iraqis who viewed the last regime favorably who see our current regime as illegitimate. They can fight that new regime. Their cause is then understandable, but not morally superior to ours, and their opinion is not more valid than that of an equal or greater number of Iraqis who either view our regime as illegitimate, but temporary and thus not worth fighting, or legitimate and thus worth following.

[Fake Boris]

I'd like to think the same, but they've not answered in the last two days.

EDIT: Just as I write this, GePap comes!

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by GePap
Sorry FakeBoris, but you endless parcel-post is obnoxious.

God will forgive you someday.

If a state's legitimacy does not originate from its citizens, as you claim, that pretty much fits the bill for 'private interests'. The latter has been historically disproven by the Roman Latifundia and the renowned American neutrality towards political donators

First, at the end of the post-what is that even supposed to mean? Nevermind... As for your first assertion-false. A State is inherently public-Even subjects' relation with their king is a public matter, not a private one. So stop butchering all the terms and making up stuff. It is a very poor way of debating.

While I recognize that I have not supported my use of the terms 'public' and 'private' with torough definitions, I had supposed they could be - at least in part - deduced. But too bad, so here's the rectification.

What I meant by public and private is similar to Rousseau's idea of general will vs individual or "associational" (for instance, an interest group, a corporation, a labor union). General will becomes active with a social contract, but its possibility arises mainly from pre-law conditions - that is, if we accept for now your idea that a law has to be codified, notwithstanding that you've not determined what is codified and what isn't - something that I define as a collective identity, i.e. language, culture, history, territory. That's why after hundreds or thousands of years, Kurds separated into four countries all consider themselves to be Kurds, Catalans have a separate identity, French Canadians consider themselves a distinct nation, etc.

So far, you have not considered this in your definition of what is a legitimate monopoly of violence. Forget the idea that any monopoly of violence is legitimate - as I pointed out several times, the word legitimate is useless in this case, because its meaning has a much wider scope than legality: it belongs to the field of morality. If you persist in that way, then do me a favour: let me introduce you to the word "ehopeirpgt", that will be defined as the "legitimacy of the legitimacy". Ehopeirpgt will be to legitimacy what legitimacy is to legality. You choose once, and you stick with your choice. Note that by taking the ehopeirpgt route, you have probably removed the necessity for the word 'legal', though - so why don't you recognize your mistake and accept that in political philosophy, 'legitimate' refers to the laws of things that should be?

So to get back to the problem: a private monopoly originates from a non-public organization to become public, by force. A public one originates from mostly public factors to confirm a state of facts by laws.

Then, the following statement of yours:

The others don't have a say about it. As I already said, it's an hypothetical situation in which they can't. So, here comes the problem: you do realize that not all majorities are democratic, right? For a majority to be democratic, it must have arisen from a debate in which the minority had a say.

Sorry, but an utterly impossible hypothetical is invalid. I might as well argue about a hypothetical were all the human beings become ants...heck, it's oly hypothetical. There is no plausible way in whcih one person would rule everyone else singlehandedly.

becomes irrelevant. If you want to define what is a legitimate (legitimate in the sense of ehopeirpgt) state in a non-arbitrary fashion, i.e. one that would belong to the world of either 'definitions', political science or political philosophy, and that in the meantime you say that private interests can form one, then any kind of private interest that represents the will of N* individuals must be a valid candidate.

We're progressing. If you are to be consistent, you'll revise this last statement. One must ask the question: when is it that a majority is an 'exclusive group', and when it is that it has arisen from a genuine democratic process? What if America annexes Canada and grants Canadians the right to vote? Is that democratic, or you do recognize that the legitimacy of the Canadian state has been violated? There are some rights that can't be granted, for the simple reason that they don't belong to the granter.

You are confusing issues massively-which is obviously your problem. Unless Canadians voted to become US citzens, no the annexation of Canada did not occur democratically. This is a different issue from the fact that any elections held in thie New North American state would certainly be democratic. Ex-Canadians would now simply be Americans. BUt democracy still exists.

I was asking you if all majorities were democratic. It all traces back to one of your first post in this thread, that said such nonsense. Obviously, you finally admit that not all majorities are democratic - certain conditions must be met. Which is interesting, since from there the term "democracy is about the majority imposing its will" becomes worthless. One has to define what those conditions will be, and such things are human rights or moral legitimacy may come to mind. (note: I am not saying, at least not at this point, that thay are necessary. I am merely asserting that once the first barrier has been breached, it becomes very difficult not to fall into arbitrary definitions such as yours, like "there's a difference between an individual and a State" - well, as long as a single person is the member of a sovereign body, there effectively isn't.)

You may try to debunk that claim, but I fail to see how it would be democratic to force someone to become a member of a sovereign body - however democratic the forcing side may be.

Going back to my question about Queen Elizabeth: no, I wasn't mixing concepts. There may be subdivisions of the legislative, like the judiciary, but ultimately they all belong to the same thing. In short, the Legislative is a representant of the Sovereign, and the Government is the delegate of the Legislative. For a government to be truly democratic IMO, the Sovereign must be the People, and preferably the legislative too. AFAIK there is no State where the Sovereign does not delegate its power to an Head of State, except in some low-level Swiss Cantons.

Hint: a statement and its opposite cannot both be true at the same time. So tell me, what is the use for the word 'legitimacy', if it doesn't express a 'legitimate' moral statement? Have you been arguing all this time simply to acknowledge that legitimacy is a non-concept, one that doesn't hold any value? This is what I've come to think:

The word is useful in figuring out the amount of support a populace will give their government. A wholy unmoral issue. People will willingly obey what they see as legitimate and will need forceful reminders of the cost of disobedianece if they think the government is not legitimate. BUt as long as the state has a clear monopoly of violence it will continue to function. So the value of legitimacy for the ruler is to what extent people will of their own volition do as you want them to do, vs how much you will be forced to make them do what you want them to do. The value of legitimacy to the ruled is a sense that they know the rules and can form a sensible expectation of future behavior and what will and will not be allowed.

1. So some States are less legitimate than the others?

2. Now, if there is a value by which someone will obey a government, is there also one by which he won't, or are you posing "legitimacy" as an absolute, i.e. that a lack of willful obedience is a lack of legitimacy?

3. Is there a value by which someone ought to obey? Do you realize that both answers, yes or no, are moral statements? If you say yes, then the answer overcomes legitimacy. If you answer no, then there's no point in legitimacy altogether, at least not outside of demagogic purposes.

something you said to Imran:

So, 'legitimacy' is not an absolute - it would be superceded by a valid moral statement? In both cases you lose. You answer "no" and, whether you like it or not, it becomes a moral statement because it is superior to any statement. You answer "yes", and then, for obvious reasons, you've lost the whole debate. Though I don't expect you to see light anytime soon.

Besides, I remember you saying that it is one's duty to follow the moral code of his society. Are you withdrawing this statement? That would be most wise of you, unless you want to look like a fool again.

Man, you are lost. If he answers yes, what he is saying is that legitimacy is not meausred in morality, and that individuals may feel some moral imperative invalidates the legitimacy a state has built. If the whole of the populace feels this way, they can then overthrow the current state and set one which would incorporate the norms they seek into the system which will be labelled as legitimate.

Errr... no. I'm not talking about how an indivudual feels like, but about a moral statement, on which the only laws that should apply are those of reason.

Let's go through all of it again. "Legitimacy is not universal, it is superceded by morality". From there the answer is simple: legitimate, as defined by him (what does hold a monopoly of violence) is worthless. At any given time, before considering legitimacy, you must consider morality.

There is no possible no answer, since legitimacy not being a moral issue in real life, it can't possibly be "overurled by a moral statement" in the way you mean that, anymore than saying "this car is blue" invalidates the statement "this car has two doors".

A moral statement invalidates another one on the basis of its wrongness or goodness, not on its truth or falseness.

To be honest, I am not trying to contest Imran's definition of legitimacy. I just want to make sure that he doesn't derive any morality from it. So that something be legitimate or not does not matter at all on how you should treat or consider it outside of realpolitik. If you look at it more broadly, it's about recognizing that legitimacy is not a prime statement about the world, it doesn't fall within the grasp of philosophy, which basically means that he would have to disprove the validity of philosophy.

I don't see where you're heading. So finally, you admit that a population living under the threat of force is not being ruled by a truly legitimate government? So it boils down to this:

No. This distinction might be too difficult for you, but: they are being ruled by a government they do not see as legitimate. There is no such thing as "trully legitimate"- it is granted, it does not exist a priori.

So there is no such thing as X is truly X? Note the uncertainty about the word a priori. What do you mean by it? Most assuredly consequentialist moralities would not claim their facts to be true a priori, but still defend their validity. A better distinction here could be 'intrinsic' and 'extrinsic'.

-Might makes right is a true statement of facts, if you assume there's no intrinsic value to the law (in other words, as long as you recognize the possibility of a wrong right).

The value of law is to create order-it is a utalitarian excercise. So no, there is no intrinsic absolute value for law.

And you've shot youself in the foot. Utilitarianism is a philosophic doctrine, which means it does grant an intrinsic values to some statements. BTW, 'survival' and 'reproduction of the specy' can all fall under an utilitarian theory. There's nothing more amoral about them than about 'human rights' or God.

-Might must stem from consent; in fact, consent is at the root of might. Can we say that a might built on consent is therefore more 'right'?

Might may have many basis. BUt no single human can enslave many more without some sort of implicit or explicit understanding by all that the ruled will remain the ruled.

I love the implicit part of it. What about the idea that a law has to be codified?

-Then, if you accept the idea that people are morally bound to their word, 'legitimacy' built on consent becomes a truly morally binding statement? That 'I shall obey legitimate authorities' is true, while the opposite is false?

What is the opposite? I shall obey illegitimate authorities? The truth of that statement is created by the individual making it-if you look at your definition of shall. IN taht respect, any individual can feel bound to obey the authorities, legitimate or not.

The truth is not specifically created by anyone, it must simply be verified by reason. The idea being that since consent is more universalizable than un-consent, it becomes a better basis for plenty of things, including might and legitimacy. Then if a legitimate authority was created by consent, it would stay as such until the consent dissolves suddenly or is violated by someone (who would be morally wrong to do so).

In short: consent ---> moral bound ---> legitimacy means that attacking this structure could be considered morally wrong. In other words, might wouldn't make right anymore, at least not in all cases.

You problem is clear-you think that some intrinsic value, some label of "legitimate" or "Illegitimate" can be given to a regime that would exist independent of the opinions of the mob. False. Each individual accesses the legitimacy of the powers ruling them-if a majority believe a government to be illegitimate then they can act to remove it. If they succeed, they can then attempt to create one they think will be legitimate to them.

What if the majority is weaker than the minority dominating them? Who is legitimate in that case?

The problem with you is clear. You think that legitimacy arises from the opinion of the mob, while at the same time claiming that it is something that is. Clearly the opinion of the mob on how things should be is oftentimes much different to how they really are. Imran's problem is that his definition of legitimacy is inconsistent and illogical, while yours is unclear, arbitrary and ever-changing.

Now if you believe that words can't be defined, you can stop writing and talking right now.