4 ms·
Uh, so things that are created for the express purpose of only allowing legitimate descisions are "repurposed" to give legitimacy? Granting legitimacy seems pre
by SiempreViernes 7y ago
Uh, so things that are created for the express purpose of only allowing legitimate descisions are "repurposed" to give legitimacy? Granting legitimacy seems pretty inherent to that whole "only allow the legitimate" business...
Overall I don't find much of merit to that argument, as it is appears built from the weird notion that the state is the spawn of the devil and all its acts are made for the enslavement of mankind, slightly ignoring the fact that a state is actually a bunch of people with fairly boring jobs related to different sorts of accounting.
- JasonFruit 7y agoWhat you're missing in your first paragraph is that legitimacy is being given to what is illegitimate, and when that failure has taken place, it then becomes permanent, because, after all, if the Supreme Court says it's okay, who am I to argue? I'd be less inclined to say, "spawn of the devil… for the enslavement of mankind," than "parasitic beast bent on survival at any cost." (If it were less parasitic, fewer accountants would be needed.) Like a tapeworm, the government parasite doesn't require malice to be harmful.
- SiempreViernes 7y agoA mechanism that allows the obviously illegitimate clearly will have no legitimacy itself, and so can't legitimise anything in particular. I don't see what the fuss is about?
- JasonFruit 7y agoWould you use the Dred Scott decision to prove your point? What about Korematsu, Yasui, or Hirabayashi v. United States?