I see a lot of people throw the words legitimate and illegitimate around here on this forum in regards to the government, but I think they’re probably not the right words to use because the primary definitions for legitimate concern legality. Legitimate means literally “to make lawful” or “legal.” Here are some definitions:
according to law; lawful
in accordance with established rules, principles, or standards.
By either one of these definitions, government is perfectly legitimate as long as it has popular consent from the governed and the laws of the land say that the government has a legal right to exist and do what it needs to do to maintain itself.
I think when libertarians use the word “illegitimate” they are following one of these two definitions:
in accordance with the laws of reasoning; logically inferable; logical:
not spurious or unjustified; genuine
If a radical libertarian means one of these when using the word “illegitimate” then obviously it makes sense.
There is clearly a potential discrepancy when using the words “legitimate” and/or “illegitimate” because are we concerned with legal rights or logical and moral rights?
That why it is best to define the terms being used at the beginning. But then Drace got mad at us because we asked him/she to define “capitalism.” Oh wellz.
I’ve mentioned before the necessary distinction between what I term the “ethical-aesthetical” vs. the “moral-legal” in relation to phenomena vs. noumena.
This helps demolish the bulk of recent statist pontification.
“I like the color blue, therefore people with non-blue eyes must be eradicated”, ought to appear to one as imminently unjust.
“Doing drugs brings about bad results, therefore you can’t do drugs” is an example of ethical preference invading the legal realm. Ritual use of entheogenic drugs, ex. the Native American Church and peyote, is at odds with the normative-ethical statement being universifiable.
The rationale for libertarian law is defending those things which respect a category of actions in line with defending private property rights as necessary to maintain a process of civilization and voluntary cooperation.
If the legislature passed a law that all people with blue eyes were to be eradicated and a majority of the public stood behind this decision and the executive was really willing to enforce the rule and the Supreme Court upheld the ruling as being consistent with the Constitution (which it isn’t under the equal protection clause, but let’s say for argument’s sake that that they didn’t overturn it) would it not be a legitimate rule in the legal sense?
On the other hand, for those who reject all positive law (“might makes right” IYDK), “legal”, refers only to what is justified by viewing actions as either in line with a process of voluntary transaction or not.
@Cret, when I use the word legitimate, I’m usually talking about whether something is legal or not. Not whether it’s moral, logical, reasonable or genuine. The law doesn’t have to be any of these things to be the law.
@Filc, I know but I really don’t feel like reading a couple of papers, it would be nice if someone could just take out the relevant parts and post them. Just saying. Also, that’s more like a few hours of reading, not 45 minutes.
I’ve been in search of the mises.org forum definition of customary law. “Whatever the law is” reeks of legal positivism. Is there some difference?
If you want to know about customary law, read Lon L. Fuller and Anthony de Jasay. Also, I recommend reading about German tribal law and Scandinavian Thing Law.
‘Legal positivism’ in the sense of state generated law has some epistemic problems that customary law does not, but in a general sense all law is ‘positive’, that is it is generated by parties involved people to further their interests. There is no law ex oblivione.
btw, I’m not saying you guys don’t have an argument against immoral laws, I’m just saying the word “illegitimate” is probably not the right word to use. Why not just call immoral laws immoral?
btw, I’m not saying you guys don’t have an argument against immoral laws, I’m just saying the word “illegitimate” is probably not the right word to use. Why not just call immoral laws immoral?
Or, better yet, why not follow with de Jasay and Fuller, that ‘justice’ and ‘morality’ are two separate things that are confused to the hazard of both.
Can anyone please give me some defining and “debunking” (you know what I mean) stuff about “Legal Positivism”, cause I see this word is mentioned here a lot?
Just beg you don’t give me books, I’d like essays, articles or something up to 5 pages. Even video/audio is enough if it is not longer than 15 minutes.
I hope I ask not too much. Will highly appreciate.
