2 ms·

> "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 s

> "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.
- TheCoelacanth 4y ago
  Your entire conception of laws is nonsense. If laws are based solely on force, then that's the end of it and whoever has the most force at a given time makes the laws. You can't just say "that person happened to have the most force at that exact moment, so whatever they did is fine and they can't be touched even by someone who now has more force". By your logic, the Nazis should not have punished for the Holocaust because they made some laws that allowed them to do it first. They murdered 10+ million people, but executing a couple dozen people who orchestrated it is beyond the pale because they passed some laws to say it was okay first.

_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.

TheCoelacanth 4y ago
Your entire conception of laws is nonsense. If laws are based solely on force, then that's the end of it and whoever has the most force at a given time makes the laws. You can't just say "that person happened to have the most force at that exact moment, so whatever they did is fine and they can't be touched even by someone who now has more force". By your logic, the Nazis should not have punished for the Holocaust because they made some laws that allowed them to do it first. They murdered 10+ million people, but executing a couple dozen people who orchestrated it is beyond the pale because they passed some laws to say it was okay first.