Given the nature of the state and the circumstances requisite for it’s very existence, why not assert that it’s illegitimate and place the burden of proof on those who would claim otherwise? Or in other words, why are we to assume first that the state is legitimate, and proceed to dismantle that position, given the obvious violence and aggression explicitly requisite for the state to even exist?
Hm, I at least did not assume the state was legitimate, quite the contrary. If we assume it’s illegitimate, some questions are raised, regardless of where they come from. My main concerns are:
- Does illegitimacy ever go away? Many of today’s states have been around for so long that there simply is little evidence aggression continues, or that it applies to today’s inhabitants.
- In such ethical reasoning, there’s no proven reason or incentive so far, let alone a guarantee, the situation will evolve in a certain way. It may even backfire in cases where a legitimate organization is assumed a priori illegitimate for various reasons, if it solely rests on such an argument.
- Many people, if put in the position to forcibly remove someone from their property or have them behave as they wish unless they leave, would have difficulties in providing sufficient evidence to “claim otherwise”. Their violent ways (which might nevertheless be legitimate) may cause you to use a similar assumption. But their grandparents might have bought the land from the government, which in turn might have stolen it from somebody and so on.
And consolidating a good argument is never a bad thing, especially given things aren’t exactly accurate in this matter.
I want to see why Giles thinks the illegitimacy of the state can’t be proven (As though it needs to be. Rather, it is the alleged legitimacy of the state that needs to be proven.) in spite of the reality of the requisite circumstances of its very existence. Giles, you around buddy?
Legitimacy stems from justice, a just government derives its authority from the consent of the governed…
What cannot be proven is that anyone consents to the government, so you cannot prove it is just, therefore it is illegitimate…
Natural Law proves government’s illegitimacy…
There are a few theists on this site who do not believe in natural law, which for me is a new one.
yes…the whole thou shalt not murder or steal is quite confusing for them.
Well that does not gell too well with anarchism, because man made law is a mechanation of a state, correct?
Yes, I think that’s a pretty convincing argument, and if I were to argue against the state, that’s the way I’d do it.
Since you were asking for authors of interest, and given you’re interested in this line of thought, I suggest you read Anthony de Jasay’s book Before Resorting to Politics, I’ve got it here but not done more than flicked through it. Essentially, he argues that the since one cannot compare utility, a lot of the justification for statist intervention does not hold water.
- Not necessarily, many natural law philosophers have been for the state (Feser comes to mind).
- This assumes you can prove natural law.
Perhaps it’s only new because you don’t understand the differences between natural law philosophy and the divine command theory of ethics. Now, granted, some Christians argue for a natural law theory of ethics, such as Feser (Grisez, Finnis and Murphy of the LvMI, I believe), and I’d be interested to read his arguments in favour of natural law (I plan on reading his The Last Superstition soon). But that by no means implies that all Christians must be in favour of a natural law ethics.
- I have an answer for them, they are wrong, I understand where they are coming from, (a government that adheres to natural law in legislation and enforcement) but it is the policy of failure, as: “Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.” G. Washington
- I can do that, care to play Giles, I will create a separate discussion just for this, but I want you to agree to challenge me on this…
But, that’s not their argument.
Go ahead. Last time I had a one on one debate on these boards the other guy left.
Care to elaborate? Or will I have to read countless books to know their point?
Nope but I may have to in order to elaborate.
OK… well I can wait.. In the meantime Here
That question has nothing to do with government. That is a question of law.
Governments are illegitimate because they do not have consent of the governed. Claiming they have consent because someone has not moved is meaningless. My rebuttal to that is always, “why should I have to move? Shouldn’t the government have to stop being tyrranical instead?”
If you “prove” something is illegitimate, the proof is only valid relative to a given ethical system of axioms.
“Governments are illegitimate because they do not have consent of the governed.” - And people are illegitimate because they frequently violate property rights. Voters get the politicians they deserve.
Perhaps when people stop acting illegitimately, we won’t need a government. In an anarcho-capitalist society, as existed in prehistoric times, security organizations naturally evolved into the governments we see today. From an evolutionary perspective, the governments are legitimate.
You are just arguing there is no truth. Go away.
No. What he said is true instead.
“And people are illegitimate because they frequently violate property rights.” makes no sense, so no, it is not true.
As to “voters get the government they deserve”, sure that is true for the voters that got the person they voted for.
or if they voted at all
or if they are eligible to vote
You are just arguing there is no truth.
No, I believe in physical reality and empirically verifiable, general, physical laws. I believe in mathematical truths relative to particular mathematical axioms; such truths are often useful in practice. I also belive in social laws which are based on masses of real, flawed people and not some cabal of moral logicians. It is a fact that societies oscillate endlessly around some point between free market and totalitarianism. Anarcho-capitalist societies and the like are unstable and the proof is that they don’t exist. Governments are a natural result of social laws and the proof is that they spring into being almost everywhere. Complaining about how reality is “illegitimate” and is in violation of your particular, subjective ethical system is not very productive, honestly. Don’t expect this part of reality to change for a very long time. Even if USA collapses, USSA or something else will replace it.
or if they voted at all
Not voting is certainly a valid choice.
or if they are eligible to vote
A small percentage of people in USA can’t vote. Unfortunately, giving voting rights to children, felons, invalids, and immigrants is not sufficient for establishing a anarchic utopia on Earth.