What constitutes a Legitmate Government

[Ed]

and what are our obligations to it?

Is the government of that NK guy legitimate? Does simply having control of a country's military confer legitimacy? Do we have the right to sanction or otherwise worry country's that do not have a government that relflects the will of the people? Is it a game of "Capture the Flag", that whoever gets to plurality of power is recognized by the world? Is there a moral obligation on the part of free countries to not confer legitimacy on nuts?

I am not particularly interested of a leftist feel good exposition of all of the past transgressions of the US as an excuse for moral indetermanacy. And for the record, arguments that draw a moral equivilance between the US and any other country is completely off topic.

I find, very often, that the biggest complainers about US action in the world pretty much are devoid of suggestions as to what would be better courses. By starting this thread I am attempting to get to some first causes for why countries do what they do.


__________________

 

[BPSCG]

Is the government of that NK guy legitimate?

No (that was easy).

Does simply having control of a country's military confer legitimacy?

No (another softball).

Any government that is not selected by the uncoerced will of its citizens is a criminal enterprise, nothing less.

Do we have the right to sanction or otherwise worry country's that do not have a government that relflects the will of the people?

Sure, if what you mean by "sanction" is "refuse to have anything to do with them." If that worries them, that's not our problem. Unless there's some worldwide constitution that requires all countries to have dealings with all other countries, in which case Iran should have relations with Israel.

Is it a game of "Capture the Flag", that whoever gets to plurality of power is recognized by the world?

Recognized as the de facto (by force of the facts on the ground) government? Yes. As the de jure (by force of law) government? No.

Is there a moral obligation on the part of free countries to not confer legitimacy on nuts?

No, as long as they're freely-elected nuts. There are some here who would say the U.S. falls into that category.

I find, very often, that the biggest complainers about US action in the world pretty much are devoid of suggestions as to what would be better courses.

AUP and The Fool have been pretty egregious in that respect recently.

 

[Ed]

Re: Re: What constitutes a Legitmate Government

Originally posted by BPSCG
Any government that is not selected by the uncoerced will of its citizens is a criminal enterprise, nothing less.

Ergo all mideast countries (but Isreal and Egypt), China, NK, Cuba, are all criminal enterprises.


Sure, if what you mean by "sanction" is "refuse to have anything to do with them." If that worries them, that's not our problem. Unless there's some worldwide constitution that requires all countries to have dealings with all other countries, in which case Iran should have relations with Israel.

Fair.

Recognized as the de facto (by force of the facts on the ground) government? Yes. As the de jure (by force of law) government? No.

Agree.

No, as long as they're freely-elected nuts. There are some here who would say the U.S. falls into that category.

Agree with the first part. The second is that moral equivilanct thingie that I would like to avoid.

AUP and The Fool have been pretty egregious in that respect recently.

The moral equivilancy thing does breed inaction. I cannot fathom what benefit it confirs.

 

[BPSCG]

Re: Re: Re: What constitutes a Legitmate Government

Originally posted by BPSCG
Any government that is not selected by the uncoerced will of its citizens is a criminal enterprise, nothing less.

Ergo all mideast countries (but Isreal and Egypt), China, NK, Cuba, are all criminal enterprises.

Yep.

No, as long as they're freely-elected nuts. There are some here who would say the U.S. falls into that category.

Agree with the first part. The second is that moral equivilanct thingie that I would like to avoid.

I understand, and I'm not arguing that the U.S. is run by nuts, only that there are others who do; but even they can not sensibly argue that the U.S. is ergo a criminal enterprise.

 

[kalen]

Why pick on the "NK guy" and his country? Why not leave the first question out if you want to ask these questions in a generalized way like it seems you are doing?

 

[rikzilla]

Why pick on the "NK guy" and his country? Why not leave the first question out if you want to ask these questions in a generalized way like it seems you are doing?

Well first there's that little new-cue-lar bomb...thingy....

Then there's the fact that it isn't his country. Unless of course you are willing to say that the millions of people who live in NK don't deserve basic human rights,...or perhaps that they prefer not to have any,...then I guess it would be okay for "Dear Leader" to own them like he does.

Is that what you're saying??

-z

BTW: Just heard a great blues song by Solomon Burke called "None of us are free" Scroll down and listen to the clip. While you're doing that think about the people of NK, Solomon was:

In all honesty there is not a duff track on the album, but for me the pick of the bunch are the pleading "Don't Give Up On Me", the philosophical "Other Side Of The Coin" and the rather anachronistic sounding "None Of Us Are Free". This latter track is a real throwback to the civil rights era, but given a contemporary flavour by applying the message to the discrimination in other countries.
This album is clearly not beyond criticism, but in my view it is still the best soul album to have been produced over the last ten years.

and...

"None of Us Are Free" resurrects a long neglected sub-genre: the politically-conscious soul song that, like "A Change is Gonna Come" or "People Get Ready", promotes spiritual and social uplift. On that track, Mann and Weil have Burke urge us all to "join together in spirit, heart, and mind" and remind us that "none of us is free if one of us is chained".

amen.

-z

 

[Ed]

Why pick on the "NK guy" and his country? Why not leave the first question out if you want to ask these questions in a generalized way like it seems you are doing?

It seems like a medieval barony but with nukes. I thought that an egregious example would be good to help set definitions.

Are you saying that the NK government is, in fact, a legitimate one?

 

[Darat]

If the government can be changed by the populace exercising its will in a peaceful manner then I would say the government is legitimate.

 

[varwoche]

Is there a moral obligation on the part of free countries to not confer legitimacy on nuts?

Sure, sounds right to me.

As well, it only makes sense that there be agreed upon international laws that define what is legitimate and what is not, and determine what response is appropriate. Otherwise, in the final analysis, it's all about might and not due process.

And if the UN is broken, we should try in earnest to fix it. Without an international body defining international law, legitimacy has no meaning.

 

[Michael Redman]

If the government can be changed by the populace exercising its will in a peaceful manner then I would say the government is legitimate.

I think that's a good definition of what we should respect as legitimate when discussing between nations.

On the other hand, anyone in the minority in a democracy might argue that their government isn't legitimate because it governs without their individual consent. It seems that the libertarians tend to take this extreme. Without some objective definition, you might as well say that a government is legitimate with respect only to an individual who believes the government is legitimate.

 

[Tmy]

Well first there's that little new-cue-lar bomb...thingy....

Then there's the fact that it isn't his country. -z

Possession is 9/10ths of the law! What does it mean if a countrys govt is illegit? Do other nations not recoginze or talk to them? We talk to Nth Korea guy all the time. Doesnt that legitimize his govt.

 

[digitalmcq]

There really is no one answer to the question of what constitutes a legitimate government. If a government is viewed as legitimate by its citizens then it is legitimate. For example, we may not view medieval monarchies as legitimate (unelected, didn't recognize what we consider 'basic human rights') but the people of the time accepted kings/queens as legitimate holders of power.

 

[Ed]

There really is no one answer to the question of what constitutes a legitimate government. If a government is viewed as legitimate by its citizens then it is legitimate. For example, we may not view medieval monarchies as legitimate (unelected, didn't recognize what we consider 'basic human rights') but the people of the time accepted kings/queens as legitimate holders of power.

That is a good point but not relevant to today.

In today's world what constitutes a legitimate government? Darat's pithy definition is to me provisionally acceptable. The idea that each individual has their individual say is sort of in the useless realm of philosophy, for now at least. Citizen power and a genuine attempt at fair representation seem to me to be the requirements.

The distinction between de Jure and de Facto is good and allows for NK.

 

[Ed]

Possession is 9/10ths of the law! What does it mean if a countrys govt is illegit? Do other nations not recoginze or talk to them? We talk to Nth Korea guy all the time. Doesnt that legitimize his govt.

Talking to them is one thing, recognizing them as a permanent fixture is something else. Again, the distinction between de Jure and de Facto.

 

[Shinytop]

The question of legitimacy is a question for philosophy, not for any discussion regarding national policy or foreign affairs. The recognition of foreign governments has usually been a pragmatic decision based more on our perceived interests than any legitimacy. Not saying whether this is good or bad. I rejoice as much as the next when recognition of a country whose government is selected and supported by its citizenry can be the policy of my government. But we cannot afford, either with money or the lives of our soldiers, to depose every government not of our liking, or not the selection of its people. And such narrow definitions would certainly place our country in bad position to influence the affairs of other countries.

Not to mention the absolute ego of claiming only we have the answers.

 

[aerocontrols]

Any government that is not selected by the uncoerced will of its citizens is a criminal enterprise, nothing less.

You set a pretty high bar, here.

The Post-WWII governments in Europe were criminal enterprises?

Recent and/or current governments in Kosovo, Bosnia, Iraq and Afghanistan are criminal enterprises?

You really think so?

MattJ

 

[kalen]

Well first there's that little new-cue-lar bomb...thingy....

Then there's the fact that it isn't his country. Unless of course you are willing to say that the millions of people who live in NK don't deserve basic human rights,...or perhaps that they prefer not to have any,...then I guess it would be okay for "Dear Leader" to own them like he does.

Is that what you're saying??

-z

WTF? Who said anything about nukes? My point is that any question about the legitmacy of one government must be applicable to all governments. Or maybe it's my mistake; is it now open season on NK? Are we going to single out this country exclusively as the subject of our derision and not say anything about other non-democracies? Are we going to be that hypocritical?

Are you saying we should be?

(kalen repsonding to the first post in the thread)
Why pick on the "NK guy" and his country? Why not leave the first question out if you want to ask these questions in a generalized way like it seems you are doing?

 

[Charlie Monoxide]

Originally posted by BPSCG : Any government that is not selected by the uncoerced will of its citizens is a criminal enterprise, nothing less.

Does that include heavy advertising scaring the unwashed masses to vote for the sponsors of said ads? In the same vein, does it also include the big contributors (with presumably limited voting capabilities), the access to the winning parties inorder to set policies?

Charlie (Enron, loverly input into national energy strategies) Monoxide

 

[Kerberos]

I wouldn't say legitimazy is a on/off thing, but rather a question of degree according to how much democracy there is and the observance of human rights, lack of corription and nepotism and other factors in "good governance".

Is the government of that NK guy legitimate? Does simply having control of a country's military confer legitimacy?

No and No

Do we have the right to sanction or otherwise worry country's that do not have a government that relflects the will of the people?

As I said , I think observance of human rights is a factor too, also I read this book once called "the future of freedom" which said, among other things, that democracies nearly always failed in countries with BNPs bellow 3000$/inhappitant (India is an exception though), sometimes failed and sometimes succeeded in countries with BNP of 3000-6000$ and always succeded in countries with BNPs of more than 6000$ (with the exeption of countries whose principal source of income is natural resources). So If democracy propably wont survive in a country with low BNP it would IMNPHO be fairly conterproductive to sanction poor undemocratic countries.

Is it a game of "Capture the Flag", that whoever gets to plurality of power is recognized by the world?

De-facto, prettu much theough there is a bias in favour of governements that are democratic and/or observe human rights.

Is there a moral obligation on the part of free countries to not confer legitimacy on nuts?

depends on what you mean by "confer legitimacy". You mentione something about recognizing them De Facto but not De Jure., but how axactly would that be different from today except for having written somewhere that we don't particuarly like NK, Iran, Syria etc.?

 

[Kerberos]

Re: Re: What constitutes a Legitmate Government

Any government that is not selected by the uncoerced will of its citizens is a criminal enterprise, nothing less.

What Aero said, plus you're essentially diffining criminal enterprises as "stuff I don't like".