What is Democracy

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Like I said, already got an A. What have you done? I see you haven't answered that .

Mainly a mix of As and Bs, depending on how hard I studied and how the correctors appreciate my... wit.

[Imran Siddiqui]

According to you then 'law' and 'legitimate' are synonyms. "A law is legitimate because it's a law" might give the morons in po sci an A, but in philosophy it would award you a pathetic E.

IIRC, Deconstructionalism is a valid philosophical theory . A law is legitimate because it's the law actually states the valid point that both come from the same source, power.

Why is it that sometimes the rule of the majority isn't democratic? If you say it always is (which I hope you won't), I suggest you write an essay about the legitimacy of the invasion of Denmark by Germany, or the occupation of Korea by Japan.

I think you misunderstand what Majority Rule means. You have to be able to assert what the Majority wants. Saying that the majority supports the dictator is nice and all, but if you can't prove it you can't say it is majority rule.

Besides that has NOTHING to do on the legitimacy of Germany's invasion of Denmark or Japan's occupation of Korea. Both were legitimate because the conquerer had the power to assert their laws on the populace.

[Flip McWho]

Go realism

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
IIRC, Deconstructionalism is a valid philosophical theory . A law is legitimate because it's the law actually states the valid point that both come from the same source, power.

I don't get what you mean by deconstructionalism. From what I know of it, its most important figure, Derrida, is a neo-kantian.

AFAIK Grotius was the last serious thinker to defend the idea that legitimacy is achieved through power. I doubt even Nietzsche would have said that.

I think you misunderstand what Majority Rule means. You have to be able to assert what the Majority wants. Saying that the majority supports the dictator is nice and all, but if you can't prove it you can't say it is majority rule.

No you don't have to, because you fail to define what is a legitimate sovereign body. If a single person has the sufficient might to subdue millions, he is, in fact, the unanimous voice of his own majority. As long as he can sustain his might, he is right.

If you do not define what is a legitimate sovereign body, then anything can be one. For something to be democratic it has to (but not limited to, there are other criteria) to be a majority imposing its will on a minority which is part of the same sovereign body. You cannot use the word 'democracy' along with 'might makes right'.

Besides that has NOTHING to do on the legitimacy of Germany's invasion of Denmark or Japan's occupation of Korea. Both were legitimate because the conquerer had the power to assert their laws on the populace.

The day you understand that 'legitimate' is a moral and not a legal statement, you'll stop repeating this nonsense. As I said countless times, according to you, legal and legitimate are absolute synonyms, thus removing the need for one or the other. Obviously though, there's a reason they both exist, and that would be because a whole discpline - political philosophy - has been thinking about them for quite a long time.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I don't get what you mean by deconstructionalism.

You know the poltical philosophy? Derrida is one of them and was the one who said everything was merely force. Foucault is also a deconstructionalist who argues power is the all important underlying thing (and he's French and you don't know him ). I'm sure many in your philosophy department will say that Foucault is a serious thinker.

Nietzsche is considered a proto-deconstructionalist and if you pushed him he probably would have ended up with the deconstructionalists have. Derrida's big influences were Nietzsche, Freud, and Heidegger.

I suggest you read more philosophy. I wouldn't want to have to give you a bad grade .

you fail to define what is a legitimate sovereign body

We kinda have done so every single post. A legitimate soveriegn body is one which has power to enforce its rules and law over the state or nation.

If a single person has the sufficient might to subdue millions, he is, in fact, the unanimous voice of his own majority. As long as he can sustain his might, he is right.

Your point? That still doesn't mean it is Majority Rule, because you can't ever be aware of the majority's belief on anything.

You cannot use the word 'democracy' along with 'might makes right'.

Why not? Is France a democracy? Yes... and do not those in power decide what is 'right'? Of course they do. Those with the might decide policy.

The day you understand that 'legitimate' is a moral and not a legal statement, you'll stop repeating this nonsense.

The day you understand that 'legitimate' is a legal as well as a moral statement, you'll stop repeating this nonsense (besides, all law is simply legislated morality). Of course the moral parts of 'legtimate' means nothing without the legal part. It's simply a way for certain groups to try to gain power, ie, legal legitimacy.

If Germany invaded Denmark and kept it for 1000 years, would people think their ownership of Denmark would be legitimate? Yep, of course. Why then does the amount of time matter in legtimacy? It doesn't.

there's a reason they both exist, and that would be because a whole discpline - political philosophy - has been thinking about them for quite a long time.

Obviously they haven't come up with any answer because their still thinking. They are trying to implant their morality into something which has been defined by another morality (the law).

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
You know the poltical philosophy? Derrida is one of them and was the one who said everything was merely force. Foucault is also a deconstructionalist who argues power is the all important underlying thing (and he's French and you don't know him ). I'm sure many in your philosophy department will say that Foucault is a serious thinker.

Derrida, in a recent dialogue with Habermas (2001), defended neo-kantian ideals. Which of his books are you talking about? AFAIK his most important works are 'Writing and difference' and 'Of Grammatology'.

As for Foucault, I've read some articles from him but I never heard of what you're talking about. If you give me the title, I have is full works on my bookshelf. I doubt though that he said something along the lines that 'might makes right' - as a philosopher, he probably distinguishes right and legitimacy.

Nietzsche is considered a proto-deconstructionalist and if you pushed him he probably would have ended up with the deconstructionalists have. Derrida's big influences were Nietzsche, Freud, and Heidegger.

Nietzsche and Freud were a huge influence on everyone, so I give it to you. But AFAIK Derrida severely attacks Heidegger's metaphysics in Of Grammatology.

We kinda have done so every single post. A legitimate soveriegn body is one which has power to enforce its rules and law over the state or nation.

Not really, because a sovereign body is not a government. The government draws its power and yes, its legitimacy, from the sovereign body. A legitimate sovereign body must include all the citizens on which its delegated government holds the monopoly of violence, or else it's an illegetimate one.

If a single person has the sufficient might to subdue millions, he is, in fact, the unanimous voice of his own majority. As long as he can sustain his might, he is right.

Your point? That still doesn't mean it is Majority Rule, because you can't ever be aware of the majority's belief on anything.

It quite does, since from when was a majority prevented from forming an empire? In the case we mentioned, the sole will of Hitler was reasonably known to make it unanimous over itself.

The day you understand that 'legitimate' is a moral and not a legal statement, you'll stop repeating this nonsense.

The day you understand that 'legitimate' is a legal as well as a moral statement, you'll stop repeating this nonsense (besides, all law is simply legislated morality). Of course the moral parts of 'legtimate' means nothing without the legal part. It's simply a way for certain groups to try to gain power, ie, legal legitimacy.

According to you, a morality is a morality before being legislated. The problem is that "might makes right" is a moral statement, and you must assume it 'universally' or 'absolutely' or 'naturally' legislated to be true. It must be assumed true 'a priori' before being used to justify practical states of the universe. Here's a short quote from Rousseau, which tries to address part of this problem:

The strongest is never strong enough to be always the master, unless he transforms strength into right, and obedience into duty. Hence the right of the strongest, which, though to all seeming meant ironically, is really laid down as a fundamental principle. But are we never to have an explanation of this phrase? Force is a physical power, and I fail to see what moral effect it can have. To yield to force is an act of necessity, not of will — at the most, an act of prudence. In what sense can it be a duty?

Suppose for a moment that this so-called "right" exists. I maintain that the sole result is a mass of inexplicable nonsense. For, if force creates right, the effect changes with the cause: every force that is greater than the first succeeds to its right. As soon as it is possible to disobey with impunity, disobedience is legitimate; and, the strongest being always in the right, the only thing that matters is to act so as to become the strongest. But what kind of right is that which perishes when force fails? If we must obey perforce, there is no need to obey because we ought; and if we are not forced to obey, we are under no obligation to do so. Clearly, the word "right" adds nothing to force: in this connection, it means absolutely nothing.

Obey the powers that be. If this means yield to force, it is a good precept, but superfluous: I can answer for its never being violated. All power comes from God, I admit; but so does all sickness: does that mean that we are forbidden to call in the doctor? A brigand surprises me at the edge of a wood: must I not merely surrender my purse on compulsion; but, even if I could withhold it, am I in conscience bound to give it up? For certainly the pistol he holds is also a power.

Let us then admit that force does not create right, and that we are obliged to obey only legitimate powers. In that case, my original question recurs.

The real issue with you is that a science infers principles from what it assumes to be true, while philosophy, as the 'first of all sciences', is basically trying to define the principles of truth. A philospher cannot accept the idea that might makes right because of its inherent tautology. In other words, you cannot make a moral statement out of a science; you need to fall into the category of philosophic speculation.

If Germany invaded Denmark and kept it for 1000 years, would people think their ownership of Denmark would be legitimate? Yep, of course. Why then does the amount of time matter in legtimacy? It doesn't.

It would have been illegitimate as long as the Danish people disagreed on it. Time doesn't matter, consent does. Since you seem to love discussing about metaphysical fabrications, you might as well get to know that derivating morality from a state of thing is a very rudimentary and worthless one.

Obviously they haven't come up with any answer because their still thinking. They are trying to implant their morality into something which has been defined by another morality (the law).

Well if a morality is a morality before being a law, I don't see the problem here.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris


According to you then 'law' and 'legitimate' are synonyms. "A law is legitimate because it's a law" might give the morons in po sci an A, but in philosophy it would award you a pathetic E.

E? Who gives out E's? The only E's I know stand for Excellent, but if that is what you mean, I fully agree :b

As for your contetion there has always been Law, well, wrong. Social convention, norms , and tabboo's are all methods by which group cohesion, but these are not LAWS. Laws must be codified. By making them into a code they aquire extra force. Also, and more importantly, with Laws you are stating someone specifically has the right to enforce them. In a social band eveyone has the "right" to enforce the norms by ostracizing and so forth. Laws can only be enforced by ONE body, the government. No one else has the right to enforce them. If you see someone rob a store you call the police-only the police has the right to apprehend, and state courts to sentence. This is a fundamental difference, so no, the law has a startiong point. Essentially, before you get to laws you must have a monopoly of violence already. Such a monopoly does not exist in bands.

Legitimacy is about a moral statement, and thus does not result from a matter of facts.

Hardly. Only in your world, but not in the flesh and blood real world. Heck, I am one of those persons who thinks Ideas are enough to change the world, but even I am not as naive as you.

[St Leo]

Originally posted by Comrade Tassadar
The Chinese and Russian peoples are Friends Forever, Enemies Never!!!

Except after the Sino-Soviet Schism, of course.

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by GePap
As for your contetion there has always been Law, well, wrong. Social convention, norms , and tabboo's are all methods by which group cohesion, but these are not LAWS. Laws must be codified. By making them into a code they aquire extra force. Also, and more importantly, with Laws you are stating someone specifically has the right to enforce them. In a social band eveyone has the "right" to enforce the norms by ostracizing and so forth.

As in any society. Are you saying that bands didn't have chiefs? that they didn't make decisions whatsoever, whether democratically or not? Algonquians in Northern Canada, who lived in very small bands, and had pre-bronze technology, were actually ruled by very authoritarian male chieftains. In such a small group, it usually doesn't matter though.

Obviously, it's quite impossible to imagine any group without laws. So, when is it that a law is a law, if might makes right? Does it have to be when it is spoken, or when it is agreed upon? As soon as someone is succesfully acting upon someone else, it must be a law. His might at X given time is superior; therefore at X given time it is law.

Laws can only be enforced by ONE body, the government. No one else has the right to enforce them. If you see someone rob a store you call the police-only the police has the right to apprehend, and state courts to sentence. This is a fundamental difference, so no, the law has a startiong point. Essentially, before you get to laws you must have a monopoly of violence already. Such a monopoly does not exist in bands.

Why not? No monopoly of violence is unbreakable. The only difference would that the monopoly in a band is weaker, and thus easier to avoid (in other words, the pact cannot be strongly enforced, because it's built on consent).

Hardly. Only in your world, but not in the flesh and blood real world. Heck, I am one of those persons who thinks Ideas are enough to change the world, but even I am not as naive as you.

Why do you insist on being an idiot? Morality is a statement on how things should be - obviously, there wouldn't be such statements if things were as they should; according to you then, everytime a moral statement is made, it is automatically false?
If you want a discussion on how certain means could be used to achieve a given objective, I would change my tone. But for now your failure to sort the difference between morality and law is pathetic. Why do you keep repeating your non-sense without answering my questions?

Here's a recapitulative:

1. Which majorities are democratic, and which aren't?

2. In essence, what's the difference between your current position and nazism?

3. If might makes right, and that laws are the only form of legitimate morality, why is it that no State has ever enacted a law saying that might makes right? Does that imply that the statement is morally wrong? If you answer no to the last question, does that imply that rational inconsistency is at the root of legitimacy?

4. Is there in your opinion a difference between a sovereign body and a government? If you answer no, why is it that Queen Elizabeth is the sovereign of England and that as such her powers are constitutionally and irrevocably delegated to a governing body?

[GePap]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris


As in any society. Are you saying that bands didn't have chiefs? that they didn't make decisions whatsoever, whether democratically or not? Algonquians in Northern Canada, who lived in very small bands, and had pre-bronze technology, were actually ruled by very authoritarian male chieftains. In such a small group, it usually doesn't matter though.

Band don't have chiefs. Tribes, which is a step up, do.

Obviously, it's quite impossible to imagine any group without laws. So, when is it that a law is a law, if might makes right? Does it have to be when it is spoken, or when it is agreed upon? As soon as someone is succesfully acting upon someone else, it must be a law. His might at X given time is superior; therefore at X given time it is law.

Again, a law is codified. You keep making up definitions for words that are your own. Someone must have a monopoly on the use of violence before they can proclaim laws. As for your idea that acting upon a whish is law, nonsense. That is not law, only cohersion under the threat of violence. Your neighbor may threaten harm unless you do as he says, but unless your neighbor is the government, that is not law. In fact, you could then go to the government and report your neighbor, as his action are illegal, against the Law.

Why not? No monopoly of violence is unbreakable. The only difference would that the monopoly in a band is weaker, and thus easier to avoid (in other words, the pact cannot be strongly enforced, because it's built on consent).

Actually, in a band monopolies are difficult. IN reality, any one humna being has the capability to kill another. Even a weak person with a blunt instrument can kill the strong at the opportune time. Creating cohesion then is key, becuase of this fact. Creating such a monopoly in very small bands is next to impossible. The more complex society becomes and the more specialization you get, the easeir. Before you get to laws, you have to be pretty far up the line.

Why do you insist on being an idiot? Morality is a statement on how things should be - obviously, there wouldn't be such statements if things were as they should; according to you then, everytime a moral statement is made, it is automatically false?

Government is something that is-legitimacy is something that is. They predate philosophy. Its roots are not philosophical at all. Hence its basis is not to be found in moral arguments. A moral statement is an opinion-it is neither true nor false. That is the point.

If you want a discussion on how certain means could be used to achieve a given objective, I would change my tone. But for now your failure to sort the difference between morality and law is pathetic. Why do you keep repeating your non-sense without answering my questions?

Laws can be immoral, moral proclamations may not be the law. The government has the right, for example, to give same sex couples the right to marry, regardless of the mass moral opposition of a mayority of citizens. The distinction is obvious, and it takes a lot to miss it.

1. Which majorities are democratic, and which aren't?

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

2. In essence, what's the difference between your current position and nazism?

The fact that nazism is a complex ethos that requiries a huge number of assumptions and previous ideas. Your gross oversimplification and constant envocaition of Goodwin's law won;t get you anywhere in this debate.

3. If might makes right, and that laws are the only form of legitimate morality, why is it that no State has ever enacted a law saying that might makes right? Does that imply that the statement is morally wrong? If you answer no to the last question, does that imply that rational inconsistency is at the root of legitimacy?

BY the time one gets to laws, a justification for legitimacy has already come up. When laws are writen, you usually don;t have to put in a big sentence saying how you are talking about it pertaining to human beings in the planet earth. Some things are assumed given, period.

4. Is there in your opinion a difference between a sovereign body and a government? If you answer no, why is it that Queen Elizabeth is the sovereign of England and that as such her powers are constitutionally and irrevocably delegated to a governing body?

The Monarch is the head of the state. The power to make legislative decisions is granted to her ministers, who rule with a democratic consent. But the government is still a monarchical one. To get rid of the queen would necesitate a change to a Republic, so even if the Queen is trully powerless, she is still part of the government. In democratic governments, governments are temporary, running the ship of state for their time in office-but the government has the power to act becuase it holds the offices of state.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Which of his books are you talking about?

Force of Law: The "Mystical Foundation of Authority"

As for Foucault, I've read some articles from him but I never heard of what you're talking about.

There is an essay by Foucault called "Power" and it is part of the "Essential Works of Foucault: 1954-1984).

But AFAIK Derrida severely attacks Heidegger's metaphysics in Of Grammatology.

So? Hegel was a big influence on Marx, but Marx still severly attacks Hegel.

a sovereign body is not a government... A legitimate sovereign body must include all the citizens on which its delegated government holds the monopoly of violence, or else it's an illegetimate one.

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.

The problem is that "might makes right" is a moral statement

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.

while philosophy, as the 'first of all sciences', is basically trying to define the principles of truth

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.

Time doesn't matter, consent does.

No it doesn't. Control matters.

[GePap]

well, my first post from my new computer!

Anyway:

One thing more on thisd debate.

OncleBoris uses the idea of "might makes right" as if it were invalid. Fine, but here is the main question: where does the might come from???

This is the step you miss Uncle: If might makes right, the inevitable question becomes why one group or individual would be in a spot to command. Lets take the tribal elder: you say they rule small bands: were does their legitimacy come from? You say it must be moral-but what is the moral basis for the chief?

There is none. HIs legitimacy probalby comes simply from age. The tribe has made a value judgement: this guy is old. Old means he lived for a long time. He must know something to live so long when so many others die early, or he has been favored, or whatever. Somehow he is successful, which means his opinions matter more than those of some snot nosed teenager. So we will trust him, and his experience, to lead us. There is his legitimacy-sans any moral judgement.

Or if a strongman rules-well, why is he stronger? Well, becuase he is. A value judgement is made-being stronger is better. If he is strong enough to make you do something, then he is better than you. Why then should he not rule? Legitimacy simply based on superior genetics in a favored trait, or heck, "God given". Again, building legitimacy sans morality.

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by GePap
Band don't have chiefs. Tribes, which is a step up, do.

That's the easy escape route. What you have to prove here is that bands existed, which I'm contesting.

Obviously, it's quite impossible to imagine any group without laws. So, when is it that a law is a law, if might makes right? Does it have to be when it is spoken, or when it is agreed upon? As soon as someone is succesfully acting upon someone else, it must be a law. His might at X given time is superior; therefore at X given time it is law.

Again, a law is codified.

What does codified mean? If you look a bit into it, you'll realize it's impossible to answer to this. Does it have to be written? spoken? If someone strong only acts upon his personal impulses, you'll say that it has not been codified and therefore isn't a law. What if he proclaims a single law: "I shall do whatever I wish to anyone?" What's the difference?

You keep making up definitions for words that are your own. Someone must have a monopoly on the use of violence before they can proclaim laws.

As for your idea that acting upon a whish is law, nonsense.

So might makes right, but not always.

That is not law, only cohersion under the threat of violence.

So, why does someone need to have the monopoly of violence to make laws, if violence results in 'cohesion under the threat of violence' but not law? Why is it that a monopoly of violence is more legitimate than another one? If a thug holds a monopoly in a few blocks of a suburban area, why is he less legitimate than the police? Obviously the police doesn't have a true monopoly of violence, if someone else is using it on the same territory at the same time.

Your neighbor may threaten harm unless you do as he says, but unless your neighbor is the government, that is not law. In fact, you could then go to the government and report your neighbor, as his action are illegal, against the Law.

Denmark has a claim over itself. Germany has a claim over Denmark. Germany is stronger, beats Denmark. Later, America comes, beats Germany and restores Denmark.

My neighor has a claim over his yard. I have a claim over it too. I beat my neighbor, I get his yard. Later the police comes and restores the property to my neighbor. It is clear that during time between I stole his yard and was caught by the police, I held an effective monopoly over the yard, just like Germany held a monopoly over Denmark.

If a government doesn't have to be an organ of the people, like you and Imran said earlier, what's the difference between Germany vs. Denmark and me vs. neighbor?

1. Which majorities are democratic, and which aren't?

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

This is nonsense. You have to define what makes a legitimate group first, or else one person imposing his will against one billion is being democratic - he's just acting as an unanimous democratic State building an empire.

The fact that nazism is a complex ethos that requiries a huge number of assumptions and previous ideas. Your gross oversimplification and constant envocaition of Goodwin's law won;t get you anywhere in this debate.

My question was "in essence", which means that I don't care for historical contingencies. 'Might makes right' as at the root of nazism, and the persons against which this axiom played were merely those who happened to be there at the time.

BY the time one gets to laws, a justification for legitimacy has already come up. When laws are writen, you usually don;t have to put in a big sentence saying how you are talking about it pertaining to human beings in the planet earth. Some things are assumed given, period.

So legitimacy is prior to law? interesting. You're beginning to sound like a philosopher.

The Monarch is the head of the state. The power to make legislative decisions is granted to her ministers, who rule with a democratic consent. But the government is still a monarchical one. To get rid of the queen would necesitate a change to a Republic, so even if the Queen is trully powerless, she is still part of the government. In democratic governments, governments are temporary, running the ship of state for their time in office-but the government has the power to act becuase it holds the offices of state.

Who is the sovereign in a Republic?

As for your answer, you are wrong. In all democratic countries, one needs to make the difference between the sovereign and the head of government. No one has the power to both enforce and make laws. That's the difference between executive and legislative power. Someone has the final decision on laws - in Canada, the Senate and/or the General Governor - while someone else acts on their behalf (the Prime minister). The prime minister can try to enact laws, but ultimately they must be approved the the legislative body: the Senate, the governor. The Supreme Court is also granted the right to verify the constitutionality of a law on behalf of the Crown if a citizen requests so.

Of course, the underlying idea is that the government depends on the Sovereign to exist, it is its subordinate. In theory, most Republics see in the President the ultimate representant of the Sovereign people.


Let's take a look at some of your inconsistencies.

Someone must have a monopoly on the use of violence before they can proclaim laws.

IN reality, any one humna being has the capability to kill another. Even a weak person with a blunt instrument can kill the strong at the opportune time.

How does one form a monopoly of violence? Your answer seems to be: 1. informal cohesion in a band 2. more complex societies find a chief who proclaim laws.

You are saying that a group needs to evolve in complexity to have what we call laws - even though at this point you never did say what the word 'codified' meant. However, this evolution obviously requires pre-law cohesion. Therefore, since it is next to impossible to establish a monopoly of violence in a band, you acknowledge that every monopoly of violence originates from some sort of pre-law consent that was ensuring cohesion. In other words, any legitimate body stems from consent before anything else, including force. As Rousseau so judiciously points out, the strongest is never strong enough to sustain his strength without laws. Therefore, the first thing he needs to proclaim laws is consent from the people.

Now, let's take a look at this word, 'legitimate', that seems to be causing so much problems.

A moral statement is an opinion-it is neither true nor false. That is the point.

Government is something that is-legitimacy is something that is.

If legitimacy is something that is, how come some things that are, aren't legitimate? As soon as something is, it implies that somewhere some cause had the strength to create some effect. If legitimacy is defined has holding a monopoly of violence over a given territory, then as soon as a violent act occurs outside of this legal monopoly but within the limits of its claimed territory, the monopoly becomes illegitimate - it isn't one anymore.

What you don't realize is that true legitimacy, according to you, does not arise from might alone - you also think that a certain might held by a given person should prevail, because it has been 'codified'. That's a moral statement, in case you didn't notice.

According to you, moral statements are neither true or false. Thus, the following sentence can't true: "I shall obey to legitimate authorities".

If you define 'authority' as the "power to enforce laws, exact obedience, command, determine, or judge", then there is no difference between a legitimate authority and an illegitimate one. There is no reason to listen to one over the other except necessity. Then the adjective 'illegitimate', when apposed to the noun 'State' or 'authority' becomes a worthless, meaningless one; it doesn't describe anything other than the monopoly of violence, which is already implied by the the nouns themselves.

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by GePap
There is none. HIs legitimacy probalby comes simply from age. The tribe has made a value judgement: this guy is old. Old means he lived for a long time. He must know something to live so long when so many others die early, or he has been favored, or whatever. Somehow he is successful, which means his opinions matter more than those of some snot nosed teenager. So we will trust him, and his experience, to lead us. There is his legitimacy-sans any moral judgement.

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.

Or if a strongman rules-well, why is he stronger? Well, becuase he is. A value judgement is made-being stronger is better. If he is strong enough to make you do something, then he is better than you. Why then should he not rule? Legitimacy simply based on superior genetics in a favored trait, or heck, "God given". Again, building legitimacy sans morality.

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.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris

What does codified mean? If you look a bit into it, you'll realize it's impossible to answer to this. Does it have to be written? spoken? If someone strong only acts upon his personal impulses, you'll say that it has not been codified and therefore isn't a law. What if he proclaims a single law: "I shall do whatever I wish to anyone?" What's the difference?

NO, acting on personal impulses is most certainly NOT codified. BY codified I mean that it must be in a form people know ahead of time, or have a way to know. This is impossible for personal feelings, unless people are psychic

So, why does someone need to have the monopoly of violence to make laws, if violence results in 'cohesion under the threat of violence' but not law? Why is it that a monopoly of violence is more legitimate than another one? If a thug holds a monopoly in a few blocks of a suburban area, why is he less legitimate than the police? Obviously the police doesn't have a true monopoly of violence, if someone else is using it on the same territory at the same time.

Lord, give me patience! If there is a police already, that means a recognized monopoly was created already. Thus, even if a thug gains a temporary local monopoly, unless he overthrows the whole, he can't make law. The police are only one arm of the state. That a thug can gain such a powerbase is based only on the fact the state he exist is such thatthe true full fury of the state is not usually used internally all the time- or else the army would have come in an slaughtered the necessary folks.

Denmark has a claim over itself. Germany has a claim over Denmark. Germany is stronger, beats Denmark. Later, America comes, beats Germany and restores Denmark.

Yes-correct. You point?

My neighor has a claim over his yard. I have a claim over it too. I beat my neighbor, I get his yard. Later the police comes and restores the property to my neighbor. It is clear that during time between I stole his yard and was caught by the police, I held an effective monopoly over the yard, just like Germany held a monopoly over Denmark.

And during that time you held the yard, "you were able to make law for it", no? BUt when the state regains full control, you will pay for your actions.

If a government doesn't have to be an organ of the people, like you and Imran said earlier, what's the difference between Germany vs. Denmark and me vs. neighbor?

One, that two states are fundamentally different from two indvidual human beings. Now, if this escapes you, this is your problem. As for the difference-If Germna invades denmark and gains full control, well, now Germany makes law in all it's territory.

This is nonsense. You have to define what makes a legitimate group first, or else one person imposing his will against one billion is being democratic - he's just acting as an unanimous democratic State building an empire.

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.

My question was "in essence", which means that I don't care for historical contingencies. 'Might makes right' as at the root of nazism, and the persons against which this axiom played were merely those who happened to be there at the time.

Might makes right is NOT the basis of Nazism. Any Nazi would say that the might of the untermensch oppressing the pure Aryans would be a completely illegitimate bastard state. So stop using this stupid line of pseudo-thought, because it is a dodge on your part.

So legitimacy is prior to law? interesting. You're beginning to sound like a philosopher.

Look at my post after the one you are respopnding to for more answers.

As for your answer, you are wrong. In all democratic countries, one needs to make the difference between the sovereign and the head of government. No one has the power to both enforce and make laws. That's the difference between executive and legislative power.
Of course, the underlying idea is that the government depends on the Sovereign to exist, it is its subordinate. In theory, most Republics see in the President the ultimate representant of the Sovereign people.

First, get your terms straight- head of state and head of government are not the same thing. So we are talking about 3 terms now. You also forget the Judiciary, which limits the power of the legislative in many states, but no all. So democratic systems can play around. As for your final statement: Yes, in a republic the Citizens are seen as the source of legitimacy, and legitimacy is created by a mayority decsion by them, NOT a uninimous one.

that a group needs to evolve in complexity to have what we call laws - even though at this point you never did say what the word 'codified' meant. However, this evolution obviously requires pre-law cohesion. Therefore, since it is next to impossible to establish a monopoly of violence in a band, you acknowledge that every monopoly of violence originates from some sort of pre-law consent that was ensuring cohesion. In other words, any legitimate body stems from consent before anything else, including force. As Rousseau so judiciously points out, the strongest is never strong enough to sustain his strength without laws. Therefore, the first thing he needs to proclaim laws is consent from the people.

Consent is never given. Human beings understand that their survival depends on the ability of a band to survive, and for this to happen there must be some group cohesion. Thus, it is in man's basic natural interest to give in to some authority, or to do what they can ot maximize cohesion without hurting their own interests too much.

As for monopolies of violence-as bands grow larger, into clans, then tribes, then nations, it is impossible to maintain order and cohesion without the creation of a monopoly. It is then simply a matter of size and complexity (amount of speicalization among members). You need to sustain a speicalized group no longer bound to be farmers to enforce a monopoly.

Now, let's take a look at this word, 'legitimate', that seems to be causing so much problems.

According to you, moral statements are neither true or false. Thus, the following sentence can't true: "I shall obey to legitimate authorities".

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.

If you define 'authority' as the "power to enforce laws, exact obedience, command, determine, or judge", then there is no difference between a legitimate authority and an illegitimate one. There is no reason to listen to one over the other except necessity. Then the adjective 'illegitimate', when apposed to the noun 'State' or 'authority' becomes a worthless, meaningless one; it doesn't describe anything other than the monopoly of violence, which is already implied by the the nouns themselves.

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.