the righteous tyrant

How should society be organised, if at all?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Post Reply
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 11678
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: the righteous tyrant

Post by Immanuel Can »

Sculptor wrote: Wed Apr 14, 2021 2:38 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Apr 14, 2021 1:56 pm
Sculptor wrote: Wed Apr 14, 2021 12:10 pm Legitimate Tyrrants:
Boris Johnson
Heh. :lol: Well, that's the level of your understanding is it? Okay.

He daily exceeds the legitimate use of power - I call that tyrrany.
Explain that: what is the range of his "legitimate use of power," as you put it.
User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 3226
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: the righteous tyrant

Post by Sculptor »

Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Apr 14, 2021 2:39 pm
Sculptor wrote: Wed Apr 14, 2021 2:38 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Apr 14, 2021 1:56 pm
Heh. :lol: Well, that's the level of your understanding is it? Okay.

He daily exceeds the legitimate use of power - I call that tyrrany.
Explain that: what is the range of his "legitimate use of power," as you put it.
Have you not been paying attention?
Maybe you live on the wrong side of the pond.
tillingborn
Posts: 1073
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2012 3:15 pm

Re: the righteous tyrant

Post by tillingborn »

Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Apr 14, 2021 2:23 pmIf there is no fundamental principle, then there is no actual legitimacy. And the same is true if one believes that our existence here is merely an accident. There are no rules for how an accident has to conduct itself. No accident is "more legitimate" than any other accident.
Indeed. Hopefully I shan't have to say this many more times:
tillingborn wrote: Wed Apr 14, 2021 2:17 pmMy point is that the political world looks exactly like one that "is merely a random product of time plus chance".
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 11678
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: the righteous tyrant

Post by Immanuel Can »

Sculptor wrote: Wed Apr 14, 2021 2:57 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Apr 14, 2021 2:39 pm
Sculptor wrote: Wed Apr 14, 2021 2:38 pm


He daily exceeds the legitimate use of power - I call that tyrrany.
Explain that: what is the range of his "legitimate use of power," as you put it.
Have you not been paying attention?
I have. I know what I think is "legit," but I have not the foggiest idea what you think defines that range.

What is the range of his "legitimate use of power"?
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 10723
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

Re: the righteous tyrant

Post by henry quirk »

the legitimacy of government

I take this to mean the legitimacy of a man or men to represent, and direct the affairs of, another man or group of men.

Consent of the man or men to be represented and directed seems to be the only legitimizer.

And where consent is forced, it becomes non-consent; and where consent cannot be withdrawn, it becomes non-consent.

And legitimacy ends.
Last edited by henry quirk on Wed Apr 14, 2021 3:39 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 11678
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: the righteous tyrant

Post by Immanuel Can »

tillingborn wrote: Wed Apr 14, 2021 2:57 pm My point is that the political world looks exactly like one that "is merely a random product of time plus chance".
[/quote]
"The political world"?

So you're supposing that if legitimacy exists, then it's necessarily the case that one of the arrangements you presently perceive in the political world must be it? And you don't see one such, and you're taking that for evidence that legitimacy is impossible? :shock:

But you're off track again. For when I used the phrase "a random product of time plus chance," I did not use it in reference to merely "the political world", but rather to the entire world, indeed, the whole cosmos. If the cosmos is "a random product of time plus chance," then no arrangement that happens within that cosmos, political or otherwise, is EVER "legitimate." There's simply no such thing.

And I think, in any case, the "random" hypothesis is simply a false hypothesis, a product of failed observation, a poor kind of interpretation of the data. But IF it were true, (and I grant that to honour your perspective) it would necessitate that no political arrangement ever could be legitimate.

That's all.
tillingborn
Posts: 1073
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2012 3:15 pm

Re: the righteous tyrant

Post by tillingborn »

Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Apr 14, 2021 3:15 pmFor when I used the phrase "a random product of time plus chance," I did not use it in reference to merely "the political world", but rather to the entire world, indeed, the whole cosmos. If the cosmos is "a random product of time plus chance," then no arrangement that happens within that cosmos, political or otherwise, is EVER "legitimate." There's simply no such thing.
How would a legitimate cosmos look different to one that is illegitimate?
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 11678
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: the righteous tyrant

Post by Immanuel Can »

tillingborn wrote: Wed Apr 14, 2021 3:25 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Apr 14, 2021 3:15 pmFor when I used the phrase "a random product of time plus chance," I did not use it in reference to merely "the political world", but rather to the entire world, indeed, the whole cosmos. If the cosmos is "a random product of time plus chance," then no arrangement that happens within that cosmos, political or otherwise, is EVER "legitimate." There's simply no such thing.
How would a legitimate cosmos look different to one that is illegitimate?
Well, "legitimate" is not the right word to apply to the cosmos itself. What is, is. The cosmos, as a factual entity pre-existing our appearance, does lend itself to legitimation. That's a category error. "Legitimation" is a matter for human, institutional arrangements, not merely material ones.

"Legitimation" has the idea of showing that some authority or political arrangement is rationally warranted given the actual nature of the cosmos.

If the nature of the cosmos is "random," then there is no political arrangement that is more rationally warranted than any other. If the nature of the cosmos is that it is created purposefully then the authority structure that reflects and entails that purpose is the "legitimate" one.

Likewise, if mankind is created as volitionally free, and is eventually held morally accountable for that, then whatever authority structure is "legitimate" would have to recognize, serve and institutionalize that freedom and that accountability. Locke pointed that out. I think that's quite right.
User avatar
Lacewing
Posts: 4521
Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2015 2:25 am

Re: the righteous tyrant

Post by Lacewing »

Age wrote: Wed Apr 14, 2021 11:08 am
Lacewing wrote: Tue Apr 13, 2021 3:44 pm
Age wrote: Tue Apr 13, 2021 11:23 am But to see the broader, and ALL OF the, ocean, then ALL of the drops 'need' to be LOOKED AT.
No, they don't. Examining everything in detail may or may not bring any particular understanding.
Who mentioned anything about "examining"?
Lacewing wrote: Tue Apr 13, 2021 3:44 pm And any particular understanding is not necessarily (nor even likely) a broader understanding than the detail that's being obsessed over.
I suggest you look at the actual words I write ONLY, then, hopefully, you will see, and understand, the absolute Truth, simplicity, and obviousness in them.
That was just my way of expressing it, Age. We can stick with your WORDS if you're assuming that my words aren't in line with your words.

You've repeatedly shown on this forum that you do NOT SEE the broader, or ALL OF the ocean, because you are looking at the drops. You've shown how you obsess over words, instead of seeing the broader meaning of how they are used and put together. You've said you want to learn to communicate better, but you disagree continually with what people are saying as if you are an expert. You project onto people (claims that are not true), then seem unaware that you're doing it, or make excuses for it, when it's pointed out to you. Lots of defensiveness and denial -- traits which are often caretakers of ego. And lots of convoluted noise, which does not reflect clarity.

Who do you think you are?
User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 3226
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: the righteous tyrant

Post by Sculptor »

Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Apr 14, 2021 3:05 pm
Sculptor wrote: Wed Apr 14, 2021 2:57 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Apr 14, 2021 2:39 pm
Explain that: what is the range of his "legitimate use of power," as you put it.
Have you not been paying attention?
I have. I know what I think is "legit," but I have not the foggiest idea what you think defines that range.

What is the range of his "legitimate use of power"?
It's subjective, relative and dependant on specific legislative protocols and precedents on particular countries.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 11678
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: the righteous tyrant

Post by Immanuel Can »

Sculptor wrote: Wed Apr 14, 2021 4:11 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Apr 14, 2021 3:05 pm
Sculptor wrote: Wed Apr 14, 2021 2:57 pm

Have you not been paying attention?
I have. I know what I think is "legit," but I have not the foggiest idea what you think defines that range.

What is the range of his "legitimate use of power"?
It's subjective, relative and dependant on specific legislative protocols and precedents on particular countries.
Then how do you know he's exceeded it? Maybe it's "subjective" to him, "relative" to what he wants to do? Or do you have in mind some "specific protocols" you could identify?
User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 3226
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: the righteous tyrant

Post by Sculptor »

Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Apr 14, 2021 4:12 pm
Sculptor wrote: Wed Apr 14, 2021 4:11 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Apr 14, 2021 3:05 pm
I have. I know what I think is "legit," but I have not the foggiest idea what you think defines that range.

What is the range of his "legitimate use of power"?
It's subjective, relative and dependant on specific legislative protocols and precedents on particular countries.
Then how do you know he's exceeded it? Maybe it's "subjective" to him, "relative" to what he wants to do? Or do you have in mind some "specific protocols" you could identify?
Duh!
If you want to know more , read Hansard.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 11678
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: the righteous tyrant

Post by Immanuel Can »

Sculptor wrote: Wed Apr 14, 2021 4:16 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Apr 14, 2021 4:12 pm
Sculptor wrote: Wed Apr 14, 2021 4:11 pm
It's subjective, relative and dependant on specific legislative protocols and precedents on particular countries.
Then how do you know he's exceeded it? Maybe it's "subjective" to him, "relative" to what he wants to do? Or do you have in mind some "specific protocols" you could identify?
Duh!
If you want to know more , read Hansard.
Heh. :D You don't know what you're talking about, I can see. So I'll help you out.

You're trying to say he exceeded the mandate the voters gave him.

But if the voters "gave" the mandate, then it means you're a democrat...you don't think authority resides in Boris, or in somebody who appointed him, or in the Queen, or in anything else that might have made Boris the PM. You think the ultimate and real authority is something conveyed by the voters to Boris, and the limits of it are defined by the Constitution.

So that's your conception of legitimacy.
User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 3226
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: the righteous tyrant

Post by Sculptor »

Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Apr 14, 2021 4:21 pm
Sculptor wrote: Wed Apr 14, 2021 4:16 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Apr 14, 2021 4:12 pm
Then how do you know he's exceeded it? Maybe it's "subjective" to him, "relative" to what he wants to do? Or do you have in mind some "specific protocols" you could identify?
Duh!
If you want to know more , read Hansard.
Heh. :D You don't know what you're talking about, I can see. So I'll help you out.

You're trying to say he exceeded the mandate the voters gave him.

But if the voters "gave" the mandate, then it means you're a democrat...you don't think authority resides in Boris, or in somebody who appointed him, or in the Queen, or in anything else that might have made Boris the PM. You think the ultimate and real authority is something conveyed by the voters to Boris, and the limits of it are defined by the Constitution.

So that's your conception of legitimacy.
No.
As usual you are off track and confused.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 11678
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: the righteous tyrant

Post by Immanuel Can »

Sculptor wrote: Wed Apr 14, 2021 4:32 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Apr 14, 2021 4:21 pm
Sculptor wrote: Wed Apr 14, 2021 4:16 pm
Duh!
If you want to know more , read Hansard.
Heh. :D You don't know what you're talking about, I can see. So I'll help you out.

You're trying to say he exceeded the mandate the voters gave him.

But if the voters "gave" the mandate, then it means you're a democrat...you don't think authority resides in Boris, or in somebody who appointed him, or in the Queen, or in anything else that might have made Boris the PM. You think the ultimate and real authority is something conveyed by the voters to Boris, and the limits of it are defined by the Constitution.

So that's your conception of legitimacy.
No.
As usual you are off track and confused.
Good. Then you can put me back "on track," simply by explaining what you DO believe is the source and nature of Boris's legitimate authority.

Fire away.
Post Reply