Brainpolice:I'm simply pointing out that the logical implication of what you're saying is, in fact, state legitimacy.
I don't know what you mean by legitimacy anymore. Obviously the state is legitimate, since many people turn to it to solve their problems and consider it to be necessary for a properly functioning society. That means they they regard the state as legitimate. I don't know what this has to do with libertarian theory however.
The fallacies of intellectual communism, a compilation - On the nature of power
February 17 - 1600 - Giordano Bruno is burnt alive by the catholic church. Aquinas : "much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death."
Stranger: I don't know what you mean by legitimacy anymore. Obviously the state is legitimate,
I don't know what this has to do with libertarian theory however.
Stranger: Brainpolice:I'm simply pointing out that the logical implication of what you're saying is, in fact, state legitimacy. I don't know what you mean by legitimacy anymore. Obviously the state is legitimate, since many people turn to it to solve their problems and consider it to be necessary for a properly functioning society. That means they they regard the state as legitimate. I don't know what this has to do with libertarian theory however.
I think we live in two completely different worlds. In my world, libertarianism rejects state legitimacy. Apparently in your world it doesn't.
Yes, most people regaurd the state as such to be legitimate and necessary - does this mean that it actually is? Of course not, nor does it mean that they necessarily actually consent to the state in any consistant sense. If the majority thought that rape and murder are moral, would it actually be moral? Not in my book.
I don't know what the legitimacy or illegitimacy of the state DOESN'T have to do with libertarianism. It's a fundamental question of political philosophy.
If they think it is legitimate and necessary and a positive good, then they quite consent to it.
There is a difference between agreeing with the concept of the government and that it is necessary and agreeing to every single thing that the government does. Noone subject to the government consents to the actions of the government as such, they only ideologically believe in its legitimacy and necessity. Ideological belief and consent are not necessarily the same thing. Everyone is subject to and effected by the government regaurdless of consent in the context of a particular case or situation. People are essentially born into political systems, it's not something they ever had a true chance to "choose" to begin with.
Stranger:I don't know what you mean by legitimacy anymore. Obviously the state is legitimate, since many people turn to it to solve their problems and consider it to be necessary for a properly functioning society.
The two can be separated, though. One can use the services (because they are foisted upon us) without considering the monopolistic provision thereof to be necessary, or even the service itself to be that necessary.