"Legitimate Authority"

P

PaladinX13

New member
It is often claimed that legitimate authority is dependent upon agreement if not consensus, whereas force- the use of terrorism, coercion, fear, etc.- is often said to undermine legitimacy when it is used to obtain obedience. At the same time, consensus can be manipulated, and coercion is sometimes necessary to uphold legitimate laws and regulations.

What do you think comprises "legitimate authority," and what standards should be used to judge?
 
You sound like the mud digger guy from HOLY GRAIL...

"Supriem Authority comes by a mandate from the Masses... not some farcical aquatic cerimony!"
"Will you SHUT UP!"
"Come witness the violence inherant in the system! Help, Help, I'm being repressed!"

Forgive my making light...
Because right now - laughter is the only way to control my fears that this is absolutly correct...


[This message has been edited by George Hill (edited October 22, 2000).]
 
Yes, consensus can be manipulated. Going on right now, correct? "Election Campaign 2000"?

Insofar as manipulating consensus and passing bad laws, that's the purpose of our Constitution and the Nine Penguins--the balance of power between the Administration, the Congress and the Judiciary.

Now: If all our judges could be objective, and not have political agendas of their own, it would all work well. (Well, if Congress were made up of statesmen, it would help...) What we have seen in the last 40 years or so is re-defining words from the Constitution. Not quite as bad a style of thinking as we heard in the famous "It all depends on what your definition of is, is."--but close.

In the main, then, legitimate authority is vested in our political subdivisions, standing in lieu of the populace at large with powers delegated to them. Delegated, not owned... :(

The standards should derive from objective readings of the Constitution and Bill of Rights, with consideration given to SCOTUS precedents.

Art
 
The Constitution is a contractual agreement between the government and the governed. It specifies the exact authority and limitation imposed upon each branch of government. (OK, so the Supreme Court had to announce to the other two branches that it's role was to interpret the Constitution and even impose Constitutional limitations on the other branches of government - See Marbury v. Madison). In theory, anything outside that which is granted to the Constitution is reserved either for the States or rests with the governed (people).

From that basis, legimitmate authority, when applied to Federal entities, is that which is recognized by the Constitution. When applied to the States of which local entities are but a mere branch, it is that which is either not preempted by the Constitution over the state or that which the is not recognized by that state's constitution.

I think a good example of misapplied Federal Authority is the Brady Bill's imposition of duties upon local law enforcement. This was successfully challeged by Sheriff Richard Mack (AZ) and Sheriff Prinz (MT). My own personal belief is that the Second Amendment precludes Federal and State efforts to control civilian possession of firearms (but that is a matter of selective application of the Bill of Rights - something which I'm still in disfavor of). Another example, yet to be challeged, is the Federal Government's mandate of low flush toilets (1.6 gallons). Where the Federal Govt. gets the authority to regulate the size of my toilet tank escapes me. If some Fed Env. Protection Cop came to my door to seize my toilet, I would hazard to say that the authority is illegitimate and subject to constitutional challenge.

On a more local level, a police officer or deputy sheriff comes goes to arrest someone. Say the arrestee is an 80 year old grandmother who is restricted to a non-motorized wheelchair, no history of violence and the arrest is for something silly like failure to pick up her dog's poop. While reasonable force is authorized to effect the arrest, deadly force isn't. That's simply beyond the legitimate authority of the officer or deputy sheriff. A more clear example is of the male officer who pulls over pretty female on the premise of some traffic violation. She's committed no violation and the officer solicits sexual favors as a means of resolving the matter (Don't laugh - this has happened and has been the basis for several federal lawsuits). Clearly the officer in this situation has no legitimate authority to stop or detain the female.

Hope this helps.
 
Legitimate authority? How about Supreme authority, or moral authority.

[This message has been edited by Arrell (edited October 22, 2000).]
 
Oh, should have mentioned why the Brady Bill was found unconstitutional. Generally, since the Feds & the States are considered separate powers, the Federal govt. cannot appropriate a State's resources. The same applies to entities chartered by the state including counties and muncipalities and their law enforcement agencies. About the only way the Feds can impose an order is to attach it to some funding and condition that funding to compliance with some Fed. law. That's how you can get a national speed limit (no Fed. highway funds if no 55 mph).

BTW, I love that scene from the Holy Grail. It went something like, "Having a sword tossed at you by some watery tart is no sound basis for government!"

C'mon guys, let's help the kid out! He'll needs more quotes from Monty Python. ;)
 
A fascinating, yet frightening concept.

"Legitimate authority" currently allows the pursuit and apprehension of sexual predators, drunk drivers, thieves, etc...those that prey upon society. Currently, it also allows, condones and justifies the killing of innocents based upon "perceived threat"...Waco, the Weavers, no-knock SWAT entries into private homes. It also allows and condones the potential ruination of individual lives in the collection of taxes.
Legitimare authority is also self-proclaimed.

"legitimate authority" is rapidly losing its connection with "moral" authority.

------------------
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes" RKBA!
 
Arrell & DC bring up points along the question of "what standards should be used to judge"? Regardless of what one thinks, the fact is all legislation founded on moral values... but many will argue that values and morals are subjective to a people, time, or age.

Personally, I want to make the argument that there MUST be an absolute standard, otherwise whatever the masses do is considered not only legally right- but morally so. This means the minority is always trampled as pure democracy nearly always leads to a socialistic utilitarianism... IMO. So, I'm going to argue that Legit Authority are those that uphold those absolute standards... the question now is, how do you determine those standards?

And what do you do once the masses want to change them?

(edit note: I put it in General because it seems more philosophical than directly political, IMO)

[This message has been edited by PaladinX13 (edited October 22, 2000).]
 
While this doesn't help athiests, or pagans or other multi theistic folk, Muslims, Jews, and Christians all derive their basis of authority from the old testiment (yes even muslims believe in the old testament, you cannot read the Quaran without a decent knowlege of the first 5 books). Simply put, God is the source of all legitimate authority. It is that authority that grants us certain "unalienable rights." So this question is a matter of how deep do you want to go? Where do you want to start? And who do you ask?
 
kjm, well... I'm looking for more generalized principles. For instance, examine the "morality" of a Speed Limit. It values society's safety over a person's right to drive quickly, the speed is determined "scientifically" meaning there is a value placed on science & prediction (it sounds obvious, but realize there are laws where rationality is not valued). So what are the core values/principles/morality/whatever you want to call it- necessary for making legit laws, in your opinion?

Oleg, isn't that somewhat Might Equals Right? A mugger can force you to give up your property, but does your conscience say that you must if there was a [non-forceful] way out of it?
 
Coercion is legitimate on the part of the government in all cases where a citizen has used coercion against his fellow man. This allows the citizen to set the rules for how he wants to be treated. If he leaves each person to do as he wished, then the same should be granted to him, if he lies, steals, or uses physical force to take something from someone else, then he has made it clear that society should see fit to use coercion on him.

Oh and...
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>the speed is determined "scientifically"[/quote]

HA HA HA, HE HE HE, Wooooooo that's a good one.
 
4V50Gary: The toilet tank deal derives from the Interstate Commerce powers of Congress--a much abused concept.

PaladinX13: You say, "This means the minority is always trampled as pure democracy nearly always leads to a socialistic utilitarianism." On paper, our society is not a democracy. When you think of the anti-smoking deal, we're behaving as one.

DC: The separation of legal from moral is brought about by a hedonistic view of one's personal life. To follow any religion or any moral code means self-discipline as to one's behavior--a concept not very popular in today's U.S. of A.

Note that among shooters and hunters, self-discipline and adherence to a moral code is an important part of our personae...Consider how many threads in the "Hunt" forum concern the ethics of hunting and the importance of not causing undue suffering. This does not fit in well with the disco-hedonism crowd.

Art
 
Mikul, well that's why "scientific" is in quotes! :D

Art, right, in some cases we act purely democratically other times we call on the Constitution to protect individual rights... but the question is supposed to extend beyond our own society's mixed up/undefined system (that is the biggest problem, IMO- the lack of consensus on any set of core absolutes... the forefathers tried to set some up but people- right wing/left wing/whatever- have been chipping away at them ever since).

What do you think those core absolutes that a nation should never diverge from, be? The most universal one, it seems, is a right-to-life (which entails other rights, like self-defense or not to be murdered). Should that be it?
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by PaladinX13:
What do you think comprises "legitimate authority," and what standards should be used to judge?[/quote]

There is a scene in "Shogun" in which the English pilot Blackthorne is discussing law and authority with Toranaga, the Japanese leader. Toranaga announces that there is NOTHING which can justify rebellion and civil war. Blackthorne replies, "Unless you succeed."

Toranaga laughs and concedes, "Yes, you have named the one thing which can justify rebellion!"

"Legitimate" authority, in my opinion, is authority which exists because the people being ruled _permit_ it exist, despite being willing and able to overthrow that authority if they choose. A nation of armed citizens, well practiced in the use of their weapons, and willing to use them, may live under legitimate authority.

Nobody else does--and the details of the arrangement (republic vs democracy, existence of a Constitution or Bill of Rights or not) are irrelevant. Only the willingness and ability of the citizenry to tar-n-feather, stone, shoot or hang would-be tyrants would ultimately matter. A nation full of gun owners unwilling to defend themselves is a paper tiger; a nation of dirt-poor citizens with pointed sticks and a commitment to liberty will be safe, free and (pretty soon) rich as well. A nation of rich, well-armed citizens ready and willing to kill "public servants" who forget their place is best of all, but vanishingly rare.
 
Wow, excellent answer Al Mondroca! My only challege would be that it sort of suggests Might Makes Right (or the consensus arguement). Obviously a nation should not allow itself to be overthrown by a single individual... or two or even a thousand (imagine the security threat!). So, in the end, it means that only a majority (or significant group size) is "allowed" to rebel thus maintaining the government's legitimacy.

A Slavery nation could be Legit because the majority can rebel, but doesn't, while the slave minority would rebel, but cannot. Another way to phrase this is: Is there no boundries on deviance? Is it okay to allow anyone to rebel if they feel it's unjust?
 
I do believe that this country, like all others, has finally confused "the potential to do harm" with "doing harm": ie I don't care if you drive down the road with a vodka bottle on an IV, but God help you if you run into something because of it... I don't care if my neighbors have a tripod-mounted MG42 draped in a Nazi flag in their back yard and dance around it wearing bedsheets with eye-holes cut in them, as long as they're not actively sending rounds into my back yard.

Thankfully, we Americans seem to express our understanding of "with the consent of the governed" in our traditional response to dumb laws. We tend to ignore them...

------------------
"..but never ever Fear. Fear is for the enemy. Fear and Bullets."
10mm: It's not the size of the Dawg in the fight, it's the size of the fight in the dog!
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by PaladinX13:
Wow, excellent answer Al Mondroca! My only challege would be that it sort of suggests Might Makes Right (or the consensus arguement).[/quote]

Well, in the world of realpolitick, might may not make right, but it definitely makes what _is_. So, yes, a nation may exist which satisfies its armed citizens' demands but which also permits unjust conditions like slavery. In fact, up to the civil war, that was exactly the case in the USA. There were virtually no controls on weapons, but slavery was tolerated and slaves (of course) were _not_ allowed weapons. I don't think such a situation is stable--but it doesn't necessarily have to end in the kind of bloodbath we had.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Obviously a nation should not allow itself to be overthrown by a single individual... or two or even a thousand (imagine the security threat!). So, in the end, it means that only a majority (or significant group size) is "allowed" to rebel thus maintaining the government's legitimacy.

[snip]

Is it okay to allow anyone to rebel if they feel it's unjust?[/quote]

Nobody is _allowed_ to rebel, by definition. Either you have the will and the ability, or you don't. A "right" to weapons tends to fall into one of two categories. First, your possession of and skill with arms is essential to the _state_ (you're a knight, or a peasant archer), and exists only for so long as it serves the state's interests; second, your right to arms is recognized because your public servants recognize that trying to disarm you is a good way to be stoned, tarred-n-feathered, hanged or shot. That you possess the means to rebel is an unfortunate but unavoidable risk in the first case, the whole point of the exercise in the second case.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top