Tweet
Originally posted by Oncle Boris
God will forgive you someday.
God will forgive you someday.
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.
Codification has nothing to do with labelling oneself as part of a greater group. Again, it has to do with setting down the rules in a manner in which everyone will knopw ahead of time what the rules are, as well as the outcome, as opposed to the ruler making the laws up as they will and handing out whichever punishment they care at their whim.
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.
That has never been agreed to as is. The legitimate authority can act immorally all it wants-if that immorality is legal.
- so why don't you recognize your mistake and accept that in political philosophy, 'legitimate' refers to the laws of things that should be?
As a political scientist, I find political philosophists to provide usefull ideas here and there, but their pronouncements are generally far form reality, specially Rousseau.
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.
NO state in existance today ever started by the later-that is simply NOT how the system works in real life. A philosophy that has no bearing with reality is a philosophy heading nowhere.
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.
The only condition that need be met is setting out the size of the set. If you start with the assumption that Canad and the US are distinct sets, then no, members of one set can;t make decisions for members of another set and call it democratic. Once the two sets merge and become one set, then we have the possibility of democracy, even if the sets were joined forceably.
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.)
Again, the only question is what is the set? This becomes a question of drawing lines on a map and on a timeline. It is not a moral one per say.
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.
IN a dmeocracy, it is assumed the source of soverignty is the pluralistic decision of the citizens. So as far as this statement above goes, you are correct. The assumptions you draw from it, though, aren't.
1. So some States are less legitimate than the others?
Intrisically? No, Extcinctly, yes.
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?
As always, you jump too far. Yes, some people will view a regime as legitimate and others won't. That is a personal opinion individuals can make. That does not stop the reigme from getting to enforce it's laws on boht individuals.
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.
You are correct, the demagogic value is the primary value of legitimacy. That i itself is such a high real life value that it makes it very important to have. Something must not be moraly valuable to be valuable.
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.
Now your problem is clear- you suffer from the serious and crippling disease that afflicts so many philosophers: thinking that all value is built in the world of ideas. False. The simply demagogic value of the concept of legitimacy is immense-it allows politics to function
A moral statement invalidates another one on the basis of its wrongness or goodness, not on its truth or falseness.
What? Since morality is not absolute, then every individual has the ability to decide which moral statement invalidates which according to you. So you can't possibly state X statement alway invalidates x.
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.
Arrgh. These ideas existed long before the notion of philosophy. Philosophy gave them names and assigns them the value of a philosophical doctrine, but these ideas exist seperate from philosophy and are a driving force for even non-sentient beings who most definitelly don;t have philosophy.
I love the implicit part of it. What about the idea that a law has to be codified?
Mine was a statement of ability. One man simpley can;t do it. He must at least have the support of many tohers willing to enforce this man's will upon others. It then becomes an issue of rule by a minority, unless the mayority of the populace agrees to follow the one's will, at which point he is not forcing people to do it, since they do it willingly.
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).
Reason must be backed by evidence, becuase one can make a reasonable mistake.
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.
Two problems with that:
1. It is impossible to get consent from everyone unless the group is extremely small-and you would be forced to renew consent with each additional person born.
2. Because of number one, anyone could claim, under your system, that because their consent was not given, the government is illegitimate to them, hence they can resist it and under you idea be morally right.
So unless you believe the system should be some sort of utopia and until it is we all live in illgegitimate states, well, the idea is no more valid now than when it was first possited.
What if the majority is weaker than the minority dominating them? Who is legitimate in that case?
You are speaking about then an Oligarchy.
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.
The opinion of a mob is as much an idea in existance as all your "reasonable assumptions", and if anything, carries far more power to affect the real world and bring about real world consequences. If the opinion of the mob differs from the facts on the ground, well, that is why violence and riots occur, no? Thus changing the facts oon the ground and reality is a concrete way none of your mussing has the power to.
Now if you believe that words can't be defined, you can stop writing and talking right now.
Comment