the righteous tyrant

How should society be organised, if at all?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Post Reply
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 10682
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

Re: the righteous tyrant

Post by henry quirk »

Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Apr 14, 2021 4:45 pm
Sculptor wrote: Wed Apr 14, 2021 4:32 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Apr 14, 2021 4:21 pm
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.
Yeah, I'm confused too...if his legitimacy isn't conferred by consent then what does confer legitimacy to his authority? And if the specific limits of his authority aren't laid out in a charter or constitution, how can one ever say he's overstepping, or he's doin' a poor job?
User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 3171
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: the righteous tyrant

Post by Sculptor »

Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Apr 14, 2021 4:45 pm
Sculptor wrote: Wed Apr 14, 2021 4:32 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Apr 14, 2021 4:21 pm
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.
Precendent, which he has flouted.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 11638
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: the righteous tyrant

Post by Immanuel Can »

Sculptor wrote: Wed Apr 14, 2021 5:52 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Apr 14, 2021 4:45 pm
Sculptor wrote: Wed Apr 14, 2021 4:32 pm

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.
Precendent, which he has flouted.
Man, you're determined not to give any information, aren't you? So either you don't know any, or you're ashamed of what you do know, I guess.

Which "precedent"?

(By the way, "precedents" are, in law, not actually binding; they're at most, a loose indication of prior judgments that may or may not be used to guide a new situation, depending on the judge's determination of relevance to the law in question -- so your condemnation of Boris there is pretty darn faint.)
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 3:42 pm"Legitimation" has the idea of showing that some authority or political arrangement is rationally warranted given the actual nature of the cosmos.
What does that mean in practise?
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 11638
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: the righteous tyrant

Post by Immanuel Can »

tillingborn wrote: Wed Apr 14, 2021 7:45 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Apr 14, 2021 3:42 pm"Legitimation" has the idea of showing that some authority or political arrangement is rationally warranted given the actual nature of the cosmos.
What does that mean in practise?
It's very simple. In practice, it means that an authority is either warranted, or it is not. So if you are behaving appropriately, it means you ought to go along with it, or not.

For example, if you think that democracy is legitimate, then it means you've agreed to be governed by the majority of voters. If you think monarchy is legitimate, then you are convinced that the right thing is to be ruled by the decisions of the king or queen...and so on.
Advocate
Posts: 2560
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2017 9:27 am
Contact:

Re: the righteous tyrant

Post by Advocate »

[quote="henry quirk" post_id=507396 time=1618409274 user_id=472]
[b]the legitimacy of government[/b]

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 [i]legitimizer[/i].

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

And legitimacy ends.
[/quote]

If consent can be withdrawn, contracts are worthless, enforcing reciprocationn is impossible, and society must crumble. That's not how consent works. It's primarily for the future, not the instant in which is created.
User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 3171
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: the righteous tyrant

Post by Sculptor »

Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Apr 14, 2021 6:38 pm
Sculptor wrote: Wed Apr 14, 2021 5:52 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Apr 14, 2021 4:45 pm
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.
Precendent, which he has flouted.
Man, you're determined not to give any information, aren't you? So either you don't know any, or you're ashamed of what you do know, I guess.

Which "precedent"?

(By the way, "precedents" are, in law, not actually binding; they're at most, a loose indication of prior judgments that may or may not be used to guide a new situation, depending on the judge's determination of relevance to the law in question -- so your condemnation of Boris there is pretty darn faint.)
Educate yourself, dullard.
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 7:59 pmIt's very simple. In practice, it means that an authority is either warranted, or it is not. So if you are behaving appropriately, it means you ought to go along with it, or not.

For example, if you think that democracy is legitimate, then it means you've agreed to be governed by the majority of voters. If you think monarchy is legitimate, then you are convinced that the right thing is to be ruled by the decisions of the king or queen...and so on.
If we should agree to be governed according to our own conscience, what guide is God?
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 11638
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: the righteous tyrant

Post by Immanuel Can »

Sculptor wrote: Wed Apr 14, 2021 8:41 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Apr 14, 2021 6:38 pm
Sculptor wrote: Wed Apr 14, 2021 5:52 pm
Precendent, which he has flouted.
Man, you're determined not to give any information, aren't you? So either you don't know any, or you're ashamed of what you do know, I guess.

Which "precedent"?

(By the way, "precedents" are, in law, not actually binding; they're at most, a loose indication of prior judgments that may or may not be used to guide a new situation, depending on the judge's determination of relevance to the law in question -- so your condemnation of Boris there is pretty darn faint.)
Educate yourself, dullard.
So...nothing intelligent to say on your own behalf.

I'm really not surprised. Okay.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 11638
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: the righteous tyrant

Post by Immanuel Can »

tillingborn wrote: Wed Apr 14, 2021 8:47 pm If we should agree to be governed according to our own conscience, what guide is God?
This is your claim, not mine. Of course, I feel no need to defend a proposition I never stated.

Point out where I said, "we should agree to be governed according to our own conscience."
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 8:56 pmPoint out where I said, "we should agree to be governed according to our own conscience."
Here:
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Apr 14, 2021 7:59 pm...if you think that democracy is legitimate, then it means you've agreed to be governed by the majority of voters. If you think monarchy is legitimate, then you are convinced that the right thing is to be ruled by the decisions of the king or queen...and so on.
Advocate
Posts: 2560
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2017 9:27 am
Contact:

legitimacy

Post by Advocate »

Legitimacy can be established by being ready, willing, and able to undertake the least harmful necessary means to create the best infrastructure within which freedom and diversity are encouraged to flourish.

You'll need to show intelligence, conscientiousness, and knowledge above average. Your main duty should be delegation and your main power should be veto. Your administration must be mostly transparent and work within the scale of complexity that ordinary people can understand.

There are many ways to go about proving legitimacy. Good "enough" to be legitimate is simply anything better than what we have now. Who is most legitimate is a different question. The answer is, the best philosopher.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 11638
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: the righteous tyrant

Post by Immanuel Can »

tillingborn wrote: Wed Apr 14, 2021 9:11 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Apr 14, 2021 8:56 pmPoint out where I said, "we should agree to be governed according to our own conscience."
Here:
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Apr 14, 2021 7:59 pm...if you think that democracy is legitimate, then it means you've agreed to be governed by the majority of voters. If you think monarchy is legitimate, then you are convinced that the right thing is to be ruled by the decisions of the king or queen...and so on.
Ummm...please point to the words "we should agree to be governed according to our own conscience" in what I said. :shock:
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 11638
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: legitimacy

Post by Immanuel Can »

Advocate wrote: Wed Apr 14, 2021 9:36 pm Legitimacy can be established by being ready, willing, and able
How is this demonstrated?
... to undertake the least harmful
Defined as what?
necessary

So if some harm is deemed "necessary" by somebody, it's okay? Who decides?
means to create the best infrastructure

Define "best." And why just "infrastructure"?
within which freedom
Meaning what?
and diversity
Why is that even included? What is inherent good about "diversity," which just means "different things"?
are encouraged to flourish.
How, and in what way?

You've said absolutely nothing definite above.

You've given nobody any idea of what establishes "legitimacy." It's rather like your "real Socialism," in that respect, actually.
Advocate
Posts: 2560
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2017 9:27 am
Contact:

Re: legitimacy

Post by Advocate »

[quote="Immanuel Can" post_id=507442 time=1618432833 user_id=9431]
[quote=Advocate post_id=507439 time=1618432572 user_id=15238]
Legitimacy can be established by being ready, willing, and able[/quote]
How is this demonstrated?

[quote]... to undertake the least harmful[/quote]
Defined as what?

[quote]necessary[/quote]
So if some harm is deemed "necessary" by somebody, it's okay? Who decides?

[quote]means to create the best infrastructure[/quote]
Define "best." And why just "infrastructure"?

[quote]within which freedom[/quote]
Meaning what?

[quote] and diversity [/quote]
Why is that even included? What is inherent good about "diversity," which just means "different things"?

[quote]are encouraged to flourish.[/quote]
How, and in what way?

You've said absolutely nothing definite above.

You've given nobody any idea of what establishes "legitimacy." It's rather like your "real Socialism," in that respect, actually.
[/quote]

It's almost as though you believe infinite regress is helpful. You're wrong. The purpose of all knowledge is actionable certainty, and that means certain Enough. If someone made a strong logical case for their candidacy and could rationally field objections, they'd be legitimate enough at least to test some of their theories in practice; whether or not anyone recognized that legitimacy. If you insist on infinite definitions and explanations, there's no point talking with you.
Post Reply