Explain that: what is the range of his "legitimate use of power," as you put it.
the righteous tyrant
- Immanuel Can
- Posts: 22528
- Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm
Re: the righteous tyrant
Re: the righteous tyrant
Have you not been paying attention?Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Apr 14, 2021 2:39 pmExplain that: what is the range of his "legitimate use of power," as you put it.Sculptor wrote: ↑Wed Apr 14, 2021 2:38 pmImmanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Apr 14, 2021 1:56 pm
Heh. Well, that's the level of your understanding is it? Okay.
He daily exceeds the legitimate use of power - I call that tyrrany.
Maybe you live on the wrong side of the pond.
-
- Posts: 1314
- Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2012 3:15 pm
Re: the righteous tyrant
Indeed. Hopefully I shan't have to say this many more times: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.
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".
- Immanuel Can
- Posts: 22528
- Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm
Re: the righteous tyrant
I have. I know what I think is "legit," but I have not the foggiest idea what you think defines that range.Sculptor wrote: ↑Wed Apr 14, 2021 2:57 pmHave you not been paying attention?Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Apr 14, 2021 2:39 pmExplain that: what is the range of his "legitimate use of power," as you put it.
What is the range of his "legitimate use of power"?
- henry quirk
- Posts: 14706
- Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
- Location: Right here, a little less busy.
Re: the righteous tyrant
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And where consent is forced, it becomes non-consent; and where consent cannot be withdrawn, it becomes non-consent.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.
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.
- Immanuel Can
- Posts: 22528
- Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm
Re: the righteous tyrant
[/quote]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".
"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?
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.
-
- Posts: 1314
- Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2012 3:15 pm
Re: the righteous tyrant
How would a legitimate cosmos look different to one that is illegitimate?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.
- Immanuel Can
- Posts: 22528
- Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm
Re: the righteous tyrant
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.tillingborn wrote: ↑Wed Apr 14, 2021 3:25 pmHow would a legitimate cosmos look different to one that is illegitimate?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.
"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.
Re: the righteous tyrant
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?
Re: the righteous tyrant
It's subjective, relative and dependant on specific legislative protocols and precedents on particular countries.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Apr 14, 2021 3:05 pmI have. I know what I think is "legit," but I have not the foggiest idea what you think defines that range.Sculptor wrote: ↑Wed Apr 14, 2021 2:57 pmHave you not been paying attention?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.
What is the range of his "legitimate use of power"?
- Immanuel Can
- Posts: 22528
- Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm
Re: the righteous tyrant
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?Sculptor wrote: ↑Wed Apr 14, 2021 4:11 pmIt's subjective, relative and dependant on specific legislative protocols and precedents on particular countries.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Apr 14, 2021 3:05 pmI 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"?
Re: the righteous tyrant
Duh!Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Apr 14, 2021 4:12 pmThen 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?Sculptor wrote: ↑Wed Apr 14, 2021 4:11 pmIt's subjective, relative and dependant on specific legislative protocols and precedents on particular countries.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"?
If you want to know more , read Hansard.
- Immanuel Can
- Posts: 22528
- Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm
Re: the righteous tyrant
Heh. You don't know what you're talking about, I can see. So I'll help you out.Sculptor wrote: ↑Wed Apr 14, 2021 4:16 pmDuh!Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Apr 14, 2021 4:12 pmThen 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?
If you want to know more , read Hansard.
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.
Re: the righteous tyrant
No.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Apr 14, 2021 4:21 pmHeh. You don't know what you're talking about, I can see. So I'll help you out.Sculptor wrote: ↑Wed Apr 14, 2021 4:16 pmDuh!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?
If you want to know more , read Hansard.
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.
As usual you are off track and confused.
- Immanuel Can
- Posts: 22528
- Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm
Re: the righteous tyrant
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.Sculptor wrote: ↑Wed Apr 14, 2021 4:32 pmNo.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Apr 14, 2021 4:21 pmHeh. 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.
As usual you are off track and confused.
Fire away.