NationStates

Is the only legitimate basis of government "the consent of the governed"? Why? Or why not?

I argue that it's not any sort of basis, period. To govern in a sense of statecraft, means authority to compel by force. The idea that authority to compel rests upon consent, is clearly an incoherent notion. Therefore, like Joseph de Maistre, I argue that the ultimate basis of a government must be grounded in some sort of traditionalism rather rationalism. Any other basis is fundamentally mendacious.

I would say yes; the consent of the governed is required because unpopular authoritarian governments are usually overthrown.

LiberNovusAmericae wrote:I would say yes because unpopular authoritarian governments are usually overthrown.

Authority rests with the military there.

LiberNovusAmericae wrote:I would say yes; the consent of the governed is required because unpopular authoritarian governments are usually overthrown.

I have yet to meet a person who consented to a speeing ticket.

Does it particularly matter whether it's legitimate or not? It would seem to be working pretty well.

Ifreann wrote:Does it particularly matter whether it's legitimate or not? It would seem to be working pretty well.

I don't think it is.

Mardla wrote:

Ifreann wrote:Does it particularly matter whether it's legitimate or not? It would seem to be working pretty well.

I don't think it is.

I'm sure you don't, but if anything that just goes to show that it is working well.

Telconi wrote:

LiberNovusAmericae wrote:I would say yes; the consent of the governed is required because unpopular authoritarian governments are usually overthrown.

I have yet to meet a person who consented to a speeing ticket.

I've never argued that everything must be specifically consented to. I'm saying is that people have to generally like what the government is doing for it to stay in power long. There are exceptions to this, but unpopular governments that alienate their people have a good chance of being overthrown.

I don't think one can truly give consent to be governed, because we are all born into a world that exists entirely under the dominion of one power or another, and we are all dependent on the state. Many people are fond of the notion of a social contract, but it is something that we are part of since birth and cannot withdraw from, so to call it a contract, as if some sort of agreement has been freely made, does not ring true for me.

In any case, no state exists or can exist without the use of violence to control its subjects, so the fact that violence is necessary for a state to sustain itself shows that universal consent cannot be achieved.

Ifreann wrote:

Mardla wrote:I don't think it is.

I'm sure you don't, but if anything that just goes to show that it is working well.

It is not actually "working", period. It is simply a slogan. A slogan does not make it the case. The systems we have, whether or not they "work", is beside the point; they would not work without compulsion.

Telconi wrote:

LiberNovusAmericae wrote:I would say yes; the consent of the governed is required because unpopular authoritarian governments are usually overthrown.

I have yet to meet a person who consented to a speeing ticket.

People may not like a speeding ticket when they get one, but more broadly people don't seem to mind that there are enforcement measures in place to keep people from blasting around at high speeds that are dangerous to themselves and others. They just don't like it when the person facing enforcement action is themselves.

Mardla wrote:

LiberNovusAmericae wrote:I would say yes because unpopular authoritarian governments are usually overthrown.

Authority rests with the military there.

Most of the time that is true, but not always. The French Revolution didn't come about due to dissent within the army; it resulted due to angry common people.

Mardla wrote:

Ifreann wrote:I'm sure you don't, but if anything that just goes to show that it is working well.

It is not actually "working", period. It is simply a slogan. A slogan does not make it the case. The systems we have, whether or not they "work", is beside the point; they would not work without compulsion.

Okay? Our societies are still functioning. We have not descended into chaos because people get to choose who governs them. If that's not a legitimate way to govern, if it's incoherent, who cares?

It is not, but it should be. The world order we should move towards is one where the consent of the governed is the only thing legitimising a regime. Unfortunately, that is not currently the case.

LiberNovusAmericae wrote:

Mardla wrote:Authority rests with the military there.

Most of the time that is true, but not always. The French Revolution didn't come about due to dissent within the army; it resulted due to angry common people.

Weapons and tech have become more important since then. I also would say it was precipitated by the third estate (which represented only the haute bourgeoisie) and the sans-culottes, not necessarily the national peasants and petite bourgeoisie.

Telconi wrote:

LiberNovusAmericae wrote:I would say yes; the consent of the governed is required because unpopular authoritarian governments are usually overthrown.

I have yet to meet a person who consented to a speeing ticket.

I haven’t met very many who consent to the speed limits at all.

Northeast American Federation wrote:

Telconi wrote:
I have yet to meet a person who consented to a speeing ticket.

People may not like a speeding ticket when they get one, but more broadly people don't seem to mind that there are enforcement measures in place to keep people from blasting around at high speeds that are dangerous to themselves and others. They just don't like it when the person facing enforcement action is themselves.

That is acceptance, not consent.

Mardla wrote:

LiberNovusAmericae wrote:Most of the time that is true, but not always. The French Revolution didn't come about due to dissent within the army; it resulted due to angry common people.

Weapons and tech have become more important since then. I also would say it was precipitated by the third estate (which represented only the haute bourgeoisie) and the sans-culottes, not necessarily the national peasants and petite bourgeoisie.

The latter argument still isn't the army, and there were plenty of poorer people who supported the revolution. That being said the haute bourgeoisie still weren't the main people in power. Now for your other argument involving technology: Yes, technology is now more important, but military bases can still be looted for weaponry, and people can still use that against the state.

I can’t say it’s 100% consent of the governed, but it works better than most.

I didn’t choose where I was born, nor did I check off every law, regulation or decision that’d impact my life in a significant way. But, for however annoyed I get at my government, I hardly wish them gone, which is probably a lot more than most people in dictatorships can say. In that way, I guess that consent of the governed isn’t always active approval as much as a lack of angry pitchfork mobs.

If I don’t like my leader, at least he wasn’t put there by a ”divine power”, or a small group of elites. If I don’t like the current administration, hopefully they’ll be voted out in the next frequent and fair election. If I don’t like a law, at least I know in general they’re there to protect, rather than restrict me. The strength of consent of the governed is that there’s always an chance for change, a “it’s not perfect but”. In any other system, best you can hope for is just happening to agree with everything they do. But humans don’t agree on anything, so you sure you want to take those odds?

No.

A government is formed and maintained by power. A publically supported entity is nothing if a nation-dominating warlord/group controls everything.

Obviously legitimacy should be based upon strange women lying in ponds distributing swords.

Mardla wrote:Is the only legitimate basis of government "the consent of the governed"? Why? Or why not?

I argue that it's not any sort of basis, period. To govern in a sense of statecraft, means authority to compel by force. The idea that authority to compel rests upon consent, is clearly an incoherent notion. Therefore, like Joseph de Maistre, I argue that the ultimate basis of a government must be grounded in some sort of traditionalism rather rationalism. Any other basis is fundamentally mendacious.

And thus, we ended up with an absolute monarchy for thousands of years.


A government that doesn’t make its people happy depends pretty much on the keys to maintain power. If the people don’t consent to being governed, either you put down a rebellion, or you change the style of government.

Telconi wrote:

LiberNovusAmericae wrote:I would say yes; the consent of the governed is required because unpopular authoritarian governments are usually overthrown.

I have yet to meet a person who consented to a speeing ticket.

They always pay it back in the end, don't they.

Likely yes, but not necessarily. Disgruntled voters disavowing a government doesn't make the government any less legitimate if the said government doesn't effectively harm the nation in a long-term manner. Democracy has to leave a small margin for errors and disagreement. But fundamentally, yes, a government needs the consent and approval of its citizens for legitimacy. Foreign powers automatically lack legitimacy, no matter what, because only the historically native people have a right to govern themselves.

Mardla wrote:

LiberNovusAmericae wrote:I would say yes because unpopular authoritarian governments are usually overthrown.

Authority rests with the military there.

The military is the best authority