4 ms·

Out of all the past events you can justify as being "legal at the time", the monarchy would be close to the last one. They wrote the laws by force and created a

Out of all the past events you can justify as being "legal at the time", the monarchy would be close to the last one. They wrote the laws by force and created all the illegitimate institutions all the way down to "forcing serfs off their subsistence farms because the factories needed workers" and slave trading. Even if you allow them their private holdings, the monarchy still have special carve outs in laws, still get to interfere in the democratic process (King's Consent and other methods), and are still subsidised by today's democratic government. The private wealth is relevant to all those things.

_8j50 4y ago
It doesn't matter if they created the law by force. They were the legitimate rulers of the country at the time and they had authority to make laws to enrich themselves
- TheCoelacanth 4y ago
  Monarchy is fundamentally illegitimate. They had power to take, but never legitimate authority.
  - _8j50 4y ago
    That is so not true. Monarchy and dictatorships only need acceptance by other countries of the time to be legitimate. I mean even amongst their own people you make it sound like the british royals did not have the consent if the people to rule. They absolutley did and the people not only accepted as legitimate but also divinely ordained. Every country in the last thousand or three years has had rules by which the military, people and ruling class elite all at least outwardly agreed upon as the basis if their governmental system. Anyone that rose to power through that system or was able to by any means change the rules is legitimate. "Only the type of rulers I like in other countries and in different times in the past are legitimate" is a silly notion.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    - TheCoelacanth 4y ago
      > "Only the type of rulers I like in other countries and in different times in the past are legitimate" is a silly notion. "Some guys in fancy hats convinced some other guys in fancy hats that it was okay, so now all people for the rest of time are bound by that" is a much, much sillier notion. If simply making a law is all that is required for legitimacy, then simply passing a law that says the monarch's property is forfeit is all that is required for it to be legitimate.
      - _8j50 4y ago
        No, making the law does not make you legitimate, having authority accepted by your military and tolerated by your people is enough. Look at Taiwan for example? Almost every country does not acknowledge them as a country separate from China yet they are because their people and military accept their authority over their island and they have control over the island. Look at north korea, the Kim family's rule is very much legitimate even though we can't say most of the people enjoy their rule, however they tolerate it and the military accepts them as rightful rulers. You can't justifiably prosecute them under NK law for stealing from their starving people for example because everything they do is by their legitimate and basically absolute authority. If a ruler is not legitimate it is either the military or the people that have to engage in active revolt at a meaningful scale to bring about doubt regarding the ruler's legitimacy. In the US civil war for example, it is hard to say Abraham Lincoln was the legitimate ruler of the south. At least not until he won the war. Rules that can't be enforced have no meaning. Rules are enforced by force which ultimately means military but at the same time rules also have no meaning if a very largr portion if the people being ruled reject the rules. Therefore under the rule of law, legitimacy of a ruler is established simply by their ability to make and enforce rules. Not their popularity or niceness. Anyone who followed the law cannot be punished and anyone who broke the law is subject to punishment. You can change laws and punish people who break them but the rule of law loses all meaning if anyone can be punished for an action that was lawful at the time.

_8j50 4y ago

It doesn't matter if they created the law by force. They were the legitimate rulers of the country at the time and they had authority to make laws to enrich themselves

TheCoelacanth 4y ago
Monarchy is fundamentally illegitimate. They had power to take, but never legitimate authority.
- _8j50 4y ago
  That is so not true. Monarchy and dictatorships only need acceptance by other countries of the time to be legitimate. I mean even amongst their own people you make it sound like the british royals did not have the consent if the people to rule. They absolutley did and the people not only accepted as legitimate but also divinely ordained. Every country in the last thousand or three years has had rules by which the military, people and ruling class elite all at least outwardly agreed upon as the basis if their governmental system. Anyone that rose to power through that system or was able to by any means change the rules is legitimate. "Only the type of rulers I like in other countries and in different times in the past are legitimate" is a silly notion.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - TheCoelacanth 4y ago
    > "Only the type of rulers I like in other countries and in different times in the past are legitimate" is a silly notion. "Some guys in fancy hats convinced some other guys in fancy hats that it was okay, so now all people for the rest of time are bound by that" is a much, much sillier notion. If simply making a law is all that is required for legitimacy, then simply passing a law that says the monarch's property is forfeit is all that is required for it to be legitimate.
    - _8j50 4y ago
      No, making the law does not make you legitimate, having authority accepted by your military and tolerated by your people is enough. Look at Taiwan for example? Almost every country does not acknowledge them as a country separate from China yet they are because their people and military accept their authority over their island and they have control over the island. Look at north korea, the Kim family's rule is very much legitimate even though we can't say most of the people enjoy their rule, however they tolerate it and the military accepts them as rightful rulers. You can't justifiably prosecute them under NK law for stealing from their starving people for example because everything they do is by their legitimate and basically absolute authority. If a ruler is not legitimate it is either the military or the people that have to engage in active revolt at a meaningful scale to bring about doubt regarding the ruler's legitimacy. In the US civil war for example, it is hard to say Abraham Lincoln was the legitimate ruler of the south. At least not until he won the war. Rules that can't be enforced have no meaning. Rules are enforced by force which ultimately means military but at the same time rules also have no meaning if a very largr portion if the people being ruled reject the rules. Therefore under the rule of law, legitimacy of a ruler is established simply by their ability to make and enforce rules. Not their popularity or niceness. Anyone who followed the law cannot be punished and anyone who broke the law is subject to punishment. You can change laws and punish people who break them but the rule of law loses all meaning if anyone can be punished for an action that was lawful at the time.