3 ms·

Seemingly neutral laws can be enforced inequitably or corruptly. A government that goes after the little guys and gives big cos a pass is illegitimate.

by adolph 5y ago

vkou 5y ago
> A government that goes after the little guys and gives big cos a pass is illegitimate. A government that governs without consent of the governed is illegitimate. A government that governs inconsistently is not necessarily illegitimate. The legitimacy of a government is not determined by any particular small-large business axis. Viewing the world through that axis is not helpful in this case. And while we're at it, just because your government is unfair doesn't make it illegitimate. There are plenty of state governments[1] that were, and are incredibly unfair in their enforcement of their laws, but when they aren't actively stealing elections, I wouldn't call them illegitimate. [1] For a crystal-clear example, the south under Jim Crow. Unfair laws, unfair enforcement of laws, but I'd be hard-pressed to argue that many of those governments did not have the consent of most of who they governed.
- thaumasiotes 5y ago
  > A government that governs without consent of the governed is illegitimate. This is not exactly a mainstream viewpoint. > For a crystal-clear example, the south under Jim Crow. Unfair laws, unfair enforcement of laws, but I'd be hard-pressed to argue that many of those governments did not have the consent of most of who they governed. But in the other direction, it's trivially easy to argue that many major governments did not have the consent of the governed. e.g. the Qing dynasty was hated by the Chinese people it ruled. The consent of the governed is not even a theoretically valid concept as applied to large groups. You rule through force.
  - vkou 5y ago
    You are correct, it's possible to further expand that definition of legitimacy, to include de-facto legitimacy (I am the guy in charge, I might be in charge because I rule through fear and force, but since I am the guy in charge, I am legitimate.) My point is that it doesn't make much sense to contract the definition of legitimacy. At a minimum, if a government has the consent of the governed, it is legitimate. If it does not, well, we can split hairs about whether or not being a warlord, a king, or some other kind of despot counts.
- adolph 5y ago
  > A governments that governs inconsistently is not necessarily illegitimate. Fair enough, I suppose legitimacy is in the eyes of the beholder, which happens to be itself.

Seemingly neutral laws can be enforced inequitably or corruptly. A government that goes after the little guys and gives big cos a pass is illegitimate.

by adolph 5y ago

Seemingly neutral laws can be enforced inequitably or corruptly. A government that goes after the little guys and gives big cos a pass is illegitimate.

vkou 5y ago

> A government that goes after the little guys and gives big cos a pass is illegitimate. A government that governs without consent of the governed is illegitimate. A government that governs inconsistently is not necessarily illegitimate. The legitimacy of a government is not determined by any particular small-large business axis. Viewing the world through that axis is not helpful in this case. And while we're at it, just because your government is unfair doesn't make it illegitimate. There are plenty of state governments[1] that were, and are incredibly unfair in their enforcement of their laws, but when they aren't actively stealing elections, I wouldn't call them illegitimate. [1] For a crystal-clear example, the south under Jim Crow. Unfair laws, unfair enforcement of laws, but I'd be hard-pressed to argue that many of those governments did not have the consent of most of who they governed.

thaumasiotes 5y ago
> A government that governs without consent of the governed is illegitimate. This is not exactly a mainstream viewpoint. > For a crystal-clear example, the south under Jim Crow. Unfair laws, unfair enforcement of laws, but I'd be hard-pressed to argue that many of those governments did not have the consent of most of who they governed. But in the other direction, it's trivially easy to argue that many major governments did not have the consent of the governed. e.g. the Qing dynasty was hated by the Chinese people it ruled. The consent of the governed is not even a theoretically valid concept as applied to large groups. You rule through force.
- vkou 5y ago
  You are correct, it's possible to further expand that definition of legitimacy, to include de-facto legitimacy (I am the guy in charge, I might be in charge because I rule through fear and force, but since I am the guy in charge, I am legitimate.) My point is that it doesn't make much sense to contract the definition of legitimacy. At a minimum, if a government has the consent of the governed, it is legitimate. If it does not, well, we can split hairs about whether or not being a warlord, a king, or some other kind of despot counts.
adolph 5y ago
> A governments that governs inconsistently is not necessarily illegitimate. Fair enough, I suppose legitimacy is in the eyes of the beholder, which happens to be itself.