I see a lot of people throw the words legitimate and illegitimate around here on this forum in regards to the government, but I think they're probably not the right words to use because the primary definitions for legitimate concern legality. Legitimate means literally "to make lawful" or "legal." Here are some definitions:
1. according to law; lawful
2.
That why it is best to define the terms being used at the beginning. But then Drace got mad at us because we asked him/she to define "capitalism." Oh wellz. :D
To paraphrase Marc Faber: We're all doomed, but that doesn't mean that we can't make money in the process. Rabbi Lapin: "Let's make bricks!" Stephan Kinsella: "Say you and I both want to make a German chocolate cake."
Radical Libertarianism: Applying Libertarian Principles to Dealing with the Unjust Government
legal rights or logical and moral rights
I've mentioned before the necessary distinction between what I term the "ethical-aesthetical" vs. the "moral-legal" in relation to phenomena vs. noumena.
This helps demolish the bulk of recent statist pontification.
The rationale for libertarian law is defending those things which respect a category of actions in line with defending private property rights as necessary to maintain a process of civilization and voluntary cooperation.
Democracy means the opportunity to be everyone's slave.—Karl Kraus.
Legal relates to written (positive) law. Legitimate relates to a higher law.
If the legislature passed a law that all people with blue eyes were to be eradicated and a majority of the public stood behind this decision and the executive was really willing to enforce the rule and the Supreme Court upheld the ruling as being consistent with the Constitution (which it isn't under the equal protection clause, but let's say for argument's sake that that they didn't overturn it) would it not be a legitimate rule in the legal sense?
Marko: Legitimate relates to a higher law.
Legitimate relates to a higher law.
So are we talking about God's Law?
Marko:Legal relates to written (positive) law. Legitimate relates to a higher law.
On the other hand, for those who reject all positive law ("might makes right" IYDK), "legal", refers only to what is justified by viewing actions as either in line with a process of voluntary transaction or not.
bloomj31:If the legislature passed a law that all people with blue eyes were to be eradicated and a majority of the public stood behind this decision and the executive was really willing to enforce the rule and the Supreme Court upheld the ruling as being consistent with the Constitution (which it isn't under the equal protection clause, but let's say for argument's sake that that they didn't overturn it) would it not be a legitimate rule in the legal sense?
...only if you fall victim to the pseudo-scientific practice of 'legal positivism'.
See Kinsella's LEGISLATION AND THE DISCOVERY OF LAW IN A FREE SOCIETY. Seriously, please read this before commenting further.
Jesus these are both 42 pages long. Cliff notes?
what do you yoursewlf think??
genuine seems a good synonym for legitimate to me.
@Cret, when I use the word legitimate, I'm usually talking about whether something is legal or not. Not whether it's moral, logical, reasonable or genuine. The law doesn't have to be any of these things to be the law.
"Jesus these are both 42 pages long. Cliff notes?"
No offense dude but thats like half an hour to 45min on the coach on a lazy saturday afternoon. =/
Legitimate is fine if it refers to customary law, game rules or statuatory references. Otherwise, it is nonsense.
Classically speaking, it just means 'in line with the law'. Whatever the law is.
“Socialism is a fraud, a comedy, a phantom, a blackmail.” - Benito Mussolini"Toute nation a le gouvernemente qu'il mérite." - Joseph de Maistre
@Filc, I know but I really don't feel like reading a couple of papers, it would be nice if someone could just take out the relevant parts and post them. Just saying. Also, that's more like a few hours of reading, not 45 minutes.
Liberte: Legitimate is fine if it refers to customary law, game rules or statuatory references. Otherwise, it is nonsense. Classically speaking, it just means 'in line with the law'. Whatever the law is.
I absolutely agree with you.
Legitimate is fine if it refers to customary law, game rules or statuatory references. Otherwise, it is nonsense. Classically speaking, it just means 'in line with the law'. Whatever the law is.
I've been in search of the mises.org forum definition of customary law. "Whatever the law is" reeks of legal positivism. Is there some difference?
If you want to know about customary law, read Lon L. Fuller and Anthony de Jasay. Also, I recommend reading about German tribal law and Scandinavian Thing Law.
'Legal positivism' in the sense of state generated law has some epistemic problems that customary law does not, but in a general sense all law is 'positive', that is it is generated by parties involved people to further their interests. There is no law ex oblivione.
btw, I'm not saying you guys don't have an argument against immoral laws, I'm just saying the word "illegitimate" is probably not the right word to use. Why not just call immoral laws immoral?
Or, better yet, why not follow with de Jasay and Fuller, that 'justice' and 'morality' are two separate things that are confused to the hazard of both.
Offtopic maybe:
Can anyone please give me some defining and "debunking" (you know what I mean) stuff about "Legal Positivism", cause I see this word is mentioned here a lot?
Just beg you don't give me books, I'd like essays, articles or something up to 5 pages. Even video/audio is enough if it is not longer than 15 minutes.
I hope I ask not too much. Will highly appreciate.
(english is not my native language, sorry for grammar.)
If you want to know about customary law, read Lon L. Fuller and Anthony de Jasay. Also, I recommend reading about German tribal law and Scandinavian Thing Law. 'Legal positivism' in the sense of state generated law has some epistemic problems that customary law does not, but in a general sense all law is 'positive', that is it is generated by parties involved people to further their interests. There is no law ex oblivione.
I just want a simple definition of the term "customary law". It is rather suspicious that the people who insist on its importance are unwilling to provide such.
Also, law ex oblivione doesn't make sense to me. The translation I am getting is "from oblivion". :confused:
I've been suggesting that people read Reinach, but only one person seems to have an opinion on it and has done such.
link link link
I also keep insisting it is necessary to separate legal theory, the result of purely mental exercises, from jurisprudence, where law is practiced. Follow?
@MaikU
Authority: H. L. A. Hart and the Problem with Legal Positivism by Candace Groudine
Liberte: Or, better yet, why not follow with de Jasay and Fuller, that 'justice' and 'morality' are two separate things that are confused to the hazard of both.
I absolutely agree with this too. They're separate concepts.
Customary law is exactly what it sounds like, the law of custom, i.e. the method of resolving disputes developed by parties actually involved and based on traditional and procedural norms.
Justice is a profession, not a philosophical category.
I think sometimes when libertarians talk about justice they're talking about moral justice not legal justice. But they don't always clarify the distinction and so it gets confusing.
Generally speaking, when libertarians talk on any subject other than economics or history, it is out of their ass.
Liberte: Generally speaking, when libertarians talk on any subject other than economics or history, it is out of their ass.
LOL
E.R. Olovetto, thank you very much. Already downloading :)
Seriously, it's sad. Most of these people if you ask them their opinions on philosophy only have Hans Hoppe, Murray Rothbard and/or Ayn Rand to fall back on. People I wouldn't even consider philosophers in any serious sense. And Rand didn't even understand economics (just like most of the people on here). Practically everything they know about philosophy, jurisprudence and political theory is focused through this extremely narrow lense of extremely biased and not entirely brilliant minds and butchered to fit into their hilariously unidimensional view of reality.
What's worse is how pretentious they are. They think they're brilliant legal theorists, masters of logical distinction. Mises himself would laugh at these clowns.
If you're interested in people with a more serious education and or/less serious case of Radical Genius Disease, try http://liberatingminds.forumotion.com/forum.htm
I'll have to check that out.
Liberte, I believe it is crucially important for Misesian wertfreiheit to be resuscitated in modern Austrianism, but it won't happen through mockery.
Your ideas are a breath of fresh air around here Liberte, but your insulting manner is entirely unacceptable.
And please don't generalize so sweepingly; we may not be as vocal, but there are quite a few wertfreiheit Misesians on the LvMI forum.
Liberté:Practically everything they know about philosophy, jurisprudence and political theory is focused through this extremely narrow lense of extremely biased and not entirely brilliant minds and butchered to fit into their hilariously unidimensional view of reality.
It's quite addicting, actually. Once you have internalized the belief that any violation of your Lockean property privileges constitutes an evil, you can unleash your righteous indignation on almost anything - license plates, sidewalks and fire hydrants included. Even today, I find myself slightly cringing whenever an alien culture in a sci-fi movie dares to defect from what I considered to be "the truth"™, courtesy of Murray Newton Rothbard. Force of habit I guess. I don't share your overly negative view of the Mises.org users, though. Many do possess an above-average understanding of economics and political theory. Most contributions tend to be imbued in ideology, all right, but that's just what political animals do.
You're probably right, but unfortunately I find it difficult to care what most of these people think about anything. It seems to me that people so ridiculous to start with aren't worth the trouble of trying to guide into some semblance of reasonability. They'd probably screw that up, too. The trouble is that these are Forum-Folk, and not serious scholars, so even if they adopt 'correct' positions, it is likely to be for fallacious reasons.
Once again, the only people who's opinions I care about would probably realise I'm not talking about them. And the rest of them - bleh, who cares?
Yes, there are exceptions. But the cranks are the rule around here.
It's quite addicting, actually. Once you have internalized the belief that any violation of your Lockean property privileges constitutes an evil, you can unleash your righteous indignation on almost anything - license plates, sidewalks and fire hydrants included.
It's funny, I mean, are they like that in real life? Probably not. I'm certainly not like this in real life. I'm skiddish as a bunny rabbit.
I don't share your overly negative view of the Mises.org users, though. Many do possess an above-average understanding of economics and political theory.
Considering that the average is 'nothing' or 'worse than nothing' that's not saying much. I'd say, for the most part, the majority of them are just parroting things that happen to be correct. Try debating the ontological and knowledge alternatives to calculation and see how far you get with them.
Most contributions tend to be imbued in ideology, all right, but that's just what political animals do.
Which is why I hate political animals.
Liberte, I believe it is crucially important for Misesian wertfreiheit to be resuscitated in modern Austrianism, but it won't happen through mockery. Your ideas are a breath of fresh air around here Liberte, but your insulting manner is entirely unacceptable. And please don't generalize so sweepingly; we may not be as vocal, but there are quite a few wertfreiheit Misesians on the LvMI forum.
Is Chamberlainian a word? If it is, it describes the post above perfectly.
"Is Chamberlainian a word? If it is, it describes the post above perfectly."
Is Liberte somehow analogous to Nazi Germany in this curious conception?
In their minds, anyone who isn't a Rothbardian nachurul ritesist is a Nazi.
This thread is nothing more than a circle jerk.
How sad. What's even sadder is you think you have something to congratulate yourselves over.
Conza88: This thread is nothing more than a circle jerk.
"Look at me, I'm quoting another user to show how wrong I think they are, out of arrogance of my own position. Wait, this is my own quote, oh shi-" ~ Nitroadict