5 ms·

What’s with people calling governments they don’t like illegitimate? People do the same with North Korea all the time. Those governments may be distasteful and

What’s with people calling governments they don’t like illegitimate? People do the same with North Korea all the time. Those governments may be distasteful and do things you don’t like, but they’re very real and have been for nearly a century now.

noduerme 5y ago
The legitimate government of China is in Taipei. If Vichy France had existed for 40 years, rather than 4, it still wouldn't have been the legitimate government of France. Other examples abound.
- trainsplanes 5y ago
  They’re entirely separate governments ruling over different countries. There’s no reason for people outside of politics to pretend otherwise. It always comes off as childish, really.
- noduerme 5y ago
  >> There’s no reason for people outside of politics to pretend otherwise Then I guess John Cena can retract his apology...
- eloisius 5y ago
  The government seated in Taipei would gladly disagree with you if it didn't imply missiles would be incoming.
- rkk3 5y ago
  Legitimate government? A warlord the US liked was over thrown by a warlord the US didn't like. Taiwan was under martial law for almost 40 years! It only recently became a democracy, what is the claim?
- chrischen 5y ago
  Taiwan wasn’t always a democracy, so if that is the standard for “legitimate” then Taiwan fails on that measure too. Same with South Korea. Both countries started as US-backed dictatorships, and US backed them mainly for its self-interest of halting communism (a threat to American invested political ideals). Like it or not the majority of Chinese people fought for and aided the communists, and continue to legitimize the communist party government by engaging in orderly civil participation. Like it or not, anything bad the Chinese government does the Chinese citizenry are culpable because they are not agent-less slaves of the party. People in China can participate in government. Believe it or not a government which has no finger on the pulse of their constituency or acting outside of their interests can and will be overthrown. You eventually run out of bullets—and people, if you point a gun to their heads.
  - seanmcdirmid 5y ago
    Taiwan didn’t start as a US backed dictatorship. Truman had pretty much given up n Chiang Kai Shek until China crossed over to side with the North Koreans during the Korean War, making the USA much more interested in supporting the ROC again. One can easily say that China traded Taiwan (which it surely would have been able to take back without USA backing) for North Korea (which probably would have been folded into the ROK without Chinese intervention).
    - rkk3 5y ago
      > Taiwan didn’t start as a US backed dictatorship. Sure because they weren't US backed but they still were a dictatorship... Truman publicly signaled the US had no intention of defending Taiwan or SK, but public sentiment changed in the US after Kim il-sung invaded. > One can easily say that China traded Taiwan (which it surely would have been able to take back without USA backing) for North Korea (which probably would have been folded into the ROK without Chinese intervention). Korea was also the Japanese invasion point into China in WW2, which made it sensitive for the US to mobilize in.
      - seanmcdirmid 5y ago
        > Sure because they weren't US backed but they still were a dictatorship... Definitely. A lot of sentiment against mainlanders in Taiwan was created by the KMT’s rule as much as by the communists. Truman’s hand was called as soon as North Korea invaded South Korea while UN troops were still stationed there. There would have been no way that the USA was going to stay out of that conflict.
ekianjo 5y ago
> but they’re very real and have been for nearly a century now. Royalty existed for much longer than that in many countries, and it was never ever legitimate unless you believed in god-given power bullshit.
- mediocregopher 5y ago
  All governments are based on some kind of belief. (Which is not to say CCP or monarchies are good, just that that's not the pillar I'd attack them on)
- trainsplanes 5y ago
  The government is most certainly legitimate if they're able to hold a country together for centuries. Whether or not the claims of being blessed by their god is legitimate is a different matter entirely. Just saying you don't like a form of government makes it illegitimate is a silly proposition. You get people every election in democratic countries saying the government is illegitimate. Usually they're considered crazy. Should "tyranny of the majority", as they'd say, be considered legitimate? What about tyranny of the minority, since in many countries, most people don't even vote? You can recognize that a dictator is the legitimate ruler of a country, while also acknowledging that he's not working in favor of the people. If someone has an entire territory's military at their command and they can write and enforce laws, that's usually a sign that they have a legitimate government.
  - ekianjo 5y ago
    > The government is most certainly legitimate if they're able to hold a country together for centuries. Legitimacy based on force is not legitimacy. It's just tyranny: if you never ask people how to want to govern themselves how can you meet the criteria of legitimacy, like EVER? Holding the biggest guns does not replace agreement and contractual acceptance of how things are run. > Should "tyranny of the majority", as they'd say, be considered legitimate It's a hell lot more legitimate since you can actually expect to change the rulers/people in power at some point through popular action. Under royalty/tyranny, you are forced to accept whoever is at the top and you have no recourse until they die. That's kind of a huge difference.
spoonjim 5y ago
You’re just using two different definitions of “legitimate” which is as common as two people using different boundaries for “blue” vs “green.” You’re talking about legitimacy as having effective control of the country, as the North Korean government does and the Somalian government does not. The person you’re arguing with uses “legitimate” to mean something like “with the just consent of the governed” which a government can have even without de facto control of its territory.
Lio 5y ago
I would imagine that people are calling these governments illegitimate because they lack a democratic mandate to rule and independent opposition to that rule. i.e. they weren't voted in; they ceased power by violence. You can't vote them out. No one has freedom of association to form an alternative political party that strongly opposes the status quo. Without those things one party governments can't say they are legitimate, only vanguard dictatorships.
- ecocentrik 5y ago
  No, that's obviously not it. Read the comments. It's 2021. People claim governments are illegitimate for any number of selfish reasons, usually disconnected from reality.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
simonh 5y ago
It's not about liking or not liking. Legitimacy in this sense is about whether those governments genuinely represent the people they rule. There exist governments that I strongly disagree with and dislike, but which do legitimately represent their people.
toss1 5y ago
OK, fine, the CCP is as legitimate as any warlord who came to power by armed conquest and performs some governmental functions. It stays in power by a combination of active repression, murder of potential opposition (great leap, but not forward), and bread & circuses (we provide economic progress, you keep quiet), and disinformation via controlled media. To me and many others, legitimacy requires some mechanism for the people to consent to the rule.
steve76 5y ago
1. No consent. Rape dressed up as authority, horribly performed across billions. Torture. Murder. 2. No laws to restrain the powerful. Nature fills the void with much worse outcomes, wars, famines, covid. 3. Superpower, hegemony, destroying the USA, wealth, nice places, their leadership does not care. Their only concern is avoid execution, primarily from their own people. 4. If their people had the power to do it, their leadership wouldn't exist. Their power is derived from keeping their followers weak. 5. It's amazing how easy life actually is when you get away from bad people. If you think your parents or your kids meddle in your life and get in your head, imagine what military surveillance with the power to execute at will does to you. Second guess everything you say and do. 5. marxists do not care about charity, pluralism, mutual respect, social welfare, and happiness. It's a very cynical and backwards view of humanity. Even nature acknowledges peace and thrives. marxist's don't. They think revolution is always necessary and nice things are for fools and cowards. If you make things nice, they'll mess it up on purpose. It's why you don't let teenage bullies rule the world. Stand up to them, they grow up real quick. 6. They would be much more effective if they dropped the guise of government and laws and just say strongest one wins. A return to barbarism. People would run faster from the monster attacking the village. No more pesky reading. Ogre with biggest club wins.

noduerme 5y ago

The legitimate government of China is in Taipei. If Vichy France had existed for 40 years, rather than 4, it still wouldn't have been the legitimate government of France. Other examples abound.

trainsplanes 5y ago
They’re entirely separate governments ruling over different countries. There’s no reason for people outside of politics to pretend otherwise. It always comes off as childish, really.
noduerme 5y ago
>> There’s no reason for people outside of politics to pretend otherwise Then I guess John Cena can retract his apology...
eloisius 5y ago
The government seated in Taipei would gladly disagree with you if it didn't imply missiles would be incoming.
rkk3 5y ago
Legitimate government? A warlord the US liked was over thrown by a warlord the US didn't like. Taiwan was under martial law for almost 40 years! It only recently became a democracy, what is the claim?
chrischen 5y ago
Taiwan wasn’t always a democracy, so if that is the standard for “legitimate” then Taiwan fails on that measure too. Same with South Korea. Both countries started as US-backed dictatorships, and US backed them mainly for its self-interest of halting communism (a threat to American invested political ideals). Like it or not the majority of Chinese people fought for and aided the communists, and continue to legitimize the communist party government by engaging in orderly civil participation. Like it or not, anything bad the Chinese government does the Chinese citizenry are culpable because they are not agent-less slaves of the party. People in China can participate in government. Believe it or not a government which has no finger on the pulse of their constituency or acting outside of their interests can and will be overthrown. You eventually run out of bullets—and people, if you point a gun to their heads.
- seanmcdirmid 5y ago
  Taiwan didn’t start as a US backed dictatorship. Truman had pretty much given up n Chiang Kai Shek until China crossed over to side with the North Koreans during the Korean War, making the USA much more interested in supporting the ROC again. One can easily say that China traded Taiwan (which it surely would have been able to take back without USA backing) for North Korea (which probably would have been folded into the ROK without Chinese intervention).
  - rkk3 5y ago
    > Taiwan didn’t start as a US backed dictatorship. Sure because they weren't US backed but they still were a dictatorship... Truman publicly signaled the US had no intention of defending Taiwan or SK, but public sentiment changed in the US after Kim il-sung invaded. > One can easily say that China traded Taiwan (which it surely would have been able to take back without USA backing) for North Korea (which probably would have been folded into the ROK without Chinese intervention). Korea was also the Japanese invasion point into China in WW2, which made it sensitive for the US to mobilize in.
    - seanmcdirmid 5y ago
      > Sure because they weren't US backed but they still were a dictatorship... Definitely. A lot of sentiment against mainlanders in Taiwan was created by the KMT’s rule as much as by the communists. Truman’s hand was called as soon as North Korea invaded South Korea while UN troops were still stationed there. There would have been no way that the USA was going to stay out of that conflict.

ekianjo 5y ago

> but they’re very real and have been for nearly a century now. Royalty existed for much longer than that in many countries, and it was never ever legitimate unless you believed in god-given power bullshit.

mediocregopher 5y ago
All governments are based on some kind of belief. (Which is not to say CCP or monarchies are good, just that that's not the pillar I'd attack them on)
trainsplanes 5y ago
The government is most certainly legitimate if they're able to hold a country together for centuries. Whether or not the claims of being blessed by their god is legitimate is a different matter entirely. Just saying you don't like a form of government makes it illegitimate is a silly proposition. You get people every election in democratic countries saying the government is illegitimate. Usually they're considered crazy. Should "tyranny of the majority", as they'd say, be considered legitimate? What about tyranny of the minority, since in many countries, most people don't even vote? You can recognize that a dictator is the legitimate ruler of a country, while also acknowledging that he's not working in favor of the people. If someone has an entire territory's military at their command and they can write and enforce laws, that's usually a sign that they have a legitimate government.
- ekianjo 5y ago
  > The government is most certainly legitimate if they're able to hold a country together for centuries. Legitimacy based on force is not legitimacy. It's just tyranny: if you never ask people how to want to govern themselves how can you meet the criteria of legitimacy, like EVER? Holding the biggest guns does not replace agreement and contractual acceptance of how things are run. > Should "tyranny of the majority", as they'd say, be considered legitimate It's a hell lot more legitimate since you can actually expect to change the rulers/people in power at some point through popular action. Under royalty/tyranny, you are forced to accept whoever is at the top and you have no recourse until they die. That's kind of a huge difference.

spoonjim 5y ago

You’re just using two different definitions of “legitimate” which is as common as two people using different boundaries for “blue” vs “green.” You’re talking about legitimacy as having effective control of the country, as the North Korean government does and the Somalian government does not. The person you’re arguing with uses “legitimate” to mean something like “with the just consent of the governed” which a government can have even without de facto control of its territory.

Lio 5y ago

I would imagine that people are calling these governments illegitimate because they lack a democratic mandate to rule and independent opposition to that rule. i.e. they weren't voted in; they ceased power by violence. You can't vote them out. No one has freedom of association to form an alternative political party that strongly opposes the status quo. Without those things one party governments can't say they are legitimate, only vanguard dictatorships.

ecocentrik 5y ago
No, that's obviously not it. Read the comments. It's 2021. People claim governments are illegitimate for any number of selfish reasons, usually disconnected from reality.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

simonh 5y ago

It's not about liking or not liking. Legitimacy in this sense is about whether those governments genuinely represent the people they rule. There exist governments that I strongly disagree with and dislike, but which do legitimately represent their people.

toss1 5y ago

OK, fine, the CCP is as legitimate as any warlord who came to power by armed conquest and performs some governmental functions. It stays in power by a combination of active repression, murder of potential opposition (great leap, but not forward), and bread & circuses (we provide economic progress, you keep quiet), and disinformation via controlled media. To me and many others, legitimacy requires some mechanism for the people to consent to the rule.

steve76 5y ago

1. No consent. Rape dressed up as authority, horribly performed across billions. Torture. Murder. 2. No laws to restrain the powerful. Nature fills the void with much worse outcomes, wars, famines, covid. 3. Superpower, hegemony, destroying the USA, wealth, nice places, their leadership does not care. Their only concern is avoid execution, primarily from their own people. 4. If their people had the power to do it, their leadership wouldn't exist. Their power is derived from keeping their followers weak. 5. It's amazing how easy life actually is when you get away from bad people. If you think your parents or your kids meddle in your life and get in your head, imagine what military surveillance with the power to execute at will does to you. Second guess everything you say and do. 5. marxists do not care about charity, pluralism, mutual respect, social welfare, and happiness. It's a very cynical and backwards view of humanity. Even nature acknowledges peace and thrives. marxist's don't. They think revolution is always necessary and nice things are for fools and cowards. If you make things nice, they'll mess it up on purpose. It's why you don't let teenage bullies rule the world. Stand up to them, they grow up real quick. 6. They would be much more effective if they dropped the guise of government and laws and just say strongest one wins. A return to barbarism. People would run faster from the monster attacking the village. No more pesky reading. Ogre with biggest club wins.