Interesting information about the British monarchy

[Craig B]

Nitpick: there were still elections in Nazi Germany, in November 1933, March 1936 and April 1938. Hitler put great value on keeping up the semblance of legality; likewise, the (powerless) Reichstag renewed the Enabling Act, which lasted for four years, in 1937 and in 1941. Of course, those elections were a sham and the only party allowed was the NSDAP.

Sham elections were conducted also by Stalin. This "semblance" of legality seems to have been functionally important to these dictators, and it testifies to their understanding that in the civilised world non-elected governments were perceived as lacking legitimacy. It is also interesting to note that at least three of the planet's most significant parliamentary governments at that time possessed colonial empires in which abuses of many kinds were of daily occurrence.

 

[Craig B]

So he was in fact a knight who said "ni"?

That's totally brilliant!

 

[Andy_Ross]

According to TragicMonkey in a previous thread
The common or garden English queen eats up to four times her own bodyweight in nuts per day. Her instinctive approach is to eat a small amount in one place then flutter to another site, this cuts down on the chances of an ambush by Predators and/or Republicans. This particular queen, however, is crossbred with the German strain, so it's possible she hovers protectively over one feeding site to enable her offspring to feed as well. It's also notable that although the queen will eat a lot of nuts over the course of a day, she will only expel them all at one at a designated latrine site, typically from high atop a tree. This is the origin of Kew Gardens

 

[Belz...]

Because the consent of the people is the only legitimate basis for the authority of a government. That has been established gradually over the centuries

Wait a second. It's "established" only in the sense that people tend to agree with it. Of course they do, since having power over the state is advantageous to them.

However, it's not as if it's been established objectively. According to Wiki:

In political science, legitimacy is the right and acceptance of an authority, usually a governing law or a régime.

Thus legitimacy depends on what the power derives from legally. In a democracy, that's at least partly the will of the people. In other systems it's different, and just because you and I agree that we prefer democracies doesn't mean it's the only system worth considering or the only legitimate one.

 

[Craig B]

I agree that we prefer democracies doesn't mean it's the only system worth considering or the only legitimate one.

Let me put it this way. In a country which we can create now in our imagination there is a constitutional crisis, and several forces are contending for domination. There is a religious hierarchy, which claims to rule because it is ordained by God to do so. There is a claimant to the throne whose qualification is that he is descended from ancient kings who previously ruled the country. There is a junta of colonels who base their claim on their ability to shoot anyone who disputes it, and there is a commission chosen by an assembly of citizens who have conducted a ballot to appoint it.

May we have no opinion on the relative legitimacy of these various claimants? The thoughts and acts of political theorists over the last quarter of a millennium are of no moment, represent no discoveries, and have brought no value to the study of this subject?

Could anyone reasonably say the same thing about the material sciences as they have developed in the same period? Whether we "prefer" phlogiston or oxygen to explain combustion is a matter of taste. Some people prefer a sniff of oxygen; others go nowhere without a bottle of phlogiston in their jacket pocket.

 

[Belz...]

Let me put it this way. In a country which we can create now in our imagination there is a constitutional crisis, and several forces are contending for domination. There is a religious hierarchy, which claims to rule because it is ordained by God to do so. There is a claimant to the throne whose qualification is that he is descended from ancient kings who previously ruled the country. There is a junta of colonels who base their claim on their ability to shoot anyone who disputes it, and there is a commission chosen by an assembly of citizens who have conducted a ballot to appoint it.

May we have no opinion on the relative legitimacy of these various claimants?

Oh, you may have any opinion you like. However, in this imaginary country, what is the current political system and how is legitimacy determined by law?

Could anyone reasonably say the same thing about the material sciences as they have developed in the same period?

No, and that's a ridiculous analogy. Science isn't about power or legitimacy or getting the result you want, but about finding the best approximation for the mechanism of a particular part of reality. It's like asking me if we can apply the same logic to ketchup. We're simply talking about something very different, and about how things are determined in that context. I understand your frustration but that's no excuse to trot out nonsensical reasoning.

 

[Craig B]

Oh, you may have any opinion you like. However, in this imaginary country, what is the current political system and how is legitimacy determined by law?

Let us give our imagination another airing, and say that the current political system is a hereditary monarchy ordained by God. Legitimacy is determined by Mullahs opening a volume of Hadith at random, and consulting the page that appears before their eyes.

Any opinions on that?

 

[Belz...]

Let us give our imagination another airing, and say that the current political system is a hereditary monarchy ordained by God. Legitimacy is determined by Mullahs opening a volume of Hadith at random, and consulting the page that appears before their eyes.

Any opinions on that?

If that's the legal system, then it should have rules on succession that I'm sure they'll resolve somehow. If they do, the legitimate government will continue. If they don't, they might be looking at a civil war. Whoever wins that will, at some later point, become legitimate. The thing about legitimacy is that it can only be determined under a certain legal system. Once the system is changed, it changes as well.

 

[Craig B]

If that's the legal system, then it should have rules on succession that I'm sure they'll resolve somehow. If they do, the legitimate government will continue. If they don't, they might be looking at a civil war. Whoever wins that will, at some later point, become legitimate. The thing about legitimacy is that it can only be determined under a certain legal system. Once the system is changed, it changes as well.

Yes but relative value judgements can be made about legal systems too. The system of Roman Law imported into mediaeval Europe where it gradually ousted such Dark Age concepts as trial by ordeal was a real improvement. The practice of electing leaders is in measurable reality better than strongmen slugging it out, and it can in fact be justified in reason, thus conferring more profound legitimacy. These innovations of the last quarter millennium really are improvements and in any case, once they are known and available, legitimacy is removed from the more unenlightened systems, and from the benighted activities of the people foolish or depraved enough to wish to reintroduce them.

It would not be legitimate to remove the right of women to vote because a priest says so; or the right of tenants to vote because landlords say so, and if any laws were introduced to impose these measures, these laws would be outrageous, and attempts to disobey or overthrow them would be justified in every sense.

Apartheid in South Africa, be it ever so strongly enshrined in law, was never legitimate.

 

[3point14]

Apartheid in South Africa, be it ever so strongly enshrined in law, was never legitimate.

Could I ask for a definition of 'legitimate' as you use it?

 

[Belz...]

Yes but relative value judgements can be made about legal systems too.

Sure. We're all justified in making subjective, individual value judgments about anything. But that speaks of us, not the thing we're talking about.

The system of Roman Law imported into mediaeval Europe where it gradually ousted such Dark Age concepts as trial by ordeal was a real improvement.

Yes, I think so. That's a value judgment, however.

These innovations of the last quarter millennium really are improvements

Objectively? Based on what?

It would not be legitimate to remove the right of women to vote because a priest says so

It would be legitimate if the law or constitution was changed.

Apartheid in South Africa, be it ever so strongly enshrined in law, was never legitimate.

Again, based on what?

 

[Craig B]

Could I ask for a definition of 'legitimate' as you use it?

With reference to legitimacy as a political concept, I have already clarified it, but here is another (pre 1776) expression of it.

The Enlightenment-era British social philosopher John Locke (1632–1704) said that political legitimacy derives from popular explicit and implicit consent of the governed: "The argument of the [Second] Treatise is that the government is not legitimate unless it is carried on with the consent of the governed."​

And it is this "consent of the governed" that is the direct basis of legitimacy, not some derogation from that principle that a majority of voters might consent to.

 

[Belz...]

With reference to legitimacy as a political concept, I have already clarified it, but here is another (pre 1776) expression of it.

The Enlightenment-era British social philosopher John Locke (1632–1704) said that political legitimacy derives from popular explicit and implicit consent of the governed: "The argument of the [Second] Treatise is that the government is not legitimate unless it is carried on with the consent of the governed."​

And it is this "consent of the governed" that is the direct basis of legitimacy, not some derogation from that principle that a majority of voters might consent to.

Well, yeah, he'd define it that way, wouldn't he?

It's like if I want to make a case for communism, and I say that "communism is the only good system". There, I just defined "good" as "communism".

However, that's not how the word "good" is usually defined. It's ideology, not reason.

 

[3point14]

With reference to legitimacy as a political concept, I have already clarified it, but here is another (pre 1776) expression of it.

The Enlightenment-era British social philosopher John Locke (1632–1704) said that political legitimacy derives from popular explicit and implicit consent of the governed: "The argument of the [Second] Treatise is that the government is not legitimate unless it is carried on with the consent of the governed."​

And it is this "consent of the governed" that is the direct basis of legitimacy, not some derogation from that principle that a majority of voters might consent to.

I think you guys are just having an argument over definition of terms.

There's the casual usage of 'legitimate', the legal one and a philosophical one. There are probably others.



I think one's view also changes dependent upon one's position. I think anyone living in N Korea would refer to their own government as 'legitimate' even though it doesn't meet your definition above.

 

[Craig B]

I think you guys are just having an argument over definition of terms.

There's the casual usage of 'legitimate', the legal one and a philosophical one. There are probably others.



I think one's view also changes dependent upon one's position. I think anyone living in N Korea would refer to their own government as 'legitimate' even though it doesn't meet your definition above.

My argument, as I have already said, is that there are degrees, real measurable ones, of quality of systems of political legitimacy; such that if there was a democratic Revolution in N Korea intended to overthrow the hereditary tyranny there, and replace it with an elected representative government, I would support that. But if there was a movement to replace the elected Norwegian government with a hereditary tyranny I would oppose that idea. One system really is better than the other.

ETA Moreover the regimes I refer to above acknowledge these relative merits. N Korea pretends to be a democracy so far as to include the word democratic in the name of the state. This is mere pretence, of course. But the elected government in Norway feels under no obligation to pretend to be an hereditary tyranny.

 

[3point14]

My argument, as I have already said, is that there are degrees, real measurable ones, of quality of systems of political legitimacy; such that if there was a democratic Revolution in N Korea intended to overthrow the hereditary tyranny there, and replace it with an elected representative government, I would support that. But if there was a movement to replace the elected Norwegian government with a hereditary tyranny I would oppose that idea. One system really is better than the other.

Better, yes.

Less legitimate? I think that depends on one's definition of 'legitimate' and where one is standing.

I would imagine that the legitimacy of the government of Taiwan is very dependent upon one's personal geography as well as on which definition of the term one chooses to use.

 

[Craig B]

Better, yes.

Less legitimate? I think that depends on one's definition of 'legitimate' and where one is standing.

I would imagine that the legitimacy of the government of Taiwan is very dependent upon one's personal geography as well as on which definition of the term one chooses to use.

Another issue is in play here. Democracy has developed in Taiwan much more than in the PRC, if in the latter polity it can be said to exist at all. But it is universally acknowledged that Taiwan is a province of China, and that China is a single integrated country. This introduces extra complexities.

Take a vaguely similar example. Suppose I deplore the government of the USA under Trump, as indeed I may. Imagine that Vermont, or some other state, escapes de facto so far from the control of Washington as to be able to set up a much better government, at State level. Should I then promote the secession of eg Vermont to secure this better governance, even though everyone - including the State government of Vermont - considers it to be legitimately part of the USA? Not a straightforward issue.

 

[Planigale]

Yes but relative value judgements can be made about legal systems too. The system of Roman Law imported into mediaeval Europe where it gradually ousted such Dark Age concepts as trial by ordeal was a real improvement. The practice of electing leaders is in measurable reality better than strongmen slugging it out, and it can in fact be justified in reason, thus conferring more profound legitimacy. These innovations of the last quarter millennium really are improvements and in any case, once they are known and available, legitimacy is removed from the more unenlightened systems, and from the benighted activities of the people foolish or depraved enough to wish to reintroduce them.

But of course Roman law was not imported into England (but was to Scotland), still the concept of trial by jury and abolition of trial by ordeal occurred. Parliamentary democracy probably arose more from 'Viking' and Anglo-Saxon traditions (e.g. Iceland and Man having ancient parliaments), than Roman. Certainly the concept of a legitimate prince losing legitimacy if not acting in the best interests of their subjects was a concept behind the enforcement of Magnae Cartae on the King by his barons. This was a concept in twelfth century philosophy indeed perhaps dating back to Augustin.

 

[Andy_Ross]

England has Common Law, derived from Viking and Saxon tradition, not Roman Law.
We had Romans for a while but they cleared off.

 

[Border Reiver]

But of course Roman law was not imported into England (but was to Scotland), still the concept of trial by jury and abolition of trial by ordeal occurred. Parliamentary democracy probably arose more from 'Viking' and Anglo-Saxon traditions (e.g. Iceland and Man having ancient parliaments), than Roman. Certainly the concept of a legitimate prince losing legitimacy if not acting in the best interests of their subjects was a concept behind the enforcement of Magnae Cartae on the King by his barons. This was a concept in twelfth century philosophy indeed perhaps dating back to Augustin.

The Celts had it as well. Kings who presided over years where famines struck or who lost unnecessary wars were deposed.