[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So far as i can see, the worst you can say about anarchy is that it descends into what we have now.
[/ QUOTE ]
Or civil war. Or fascist communism or capitalism. Or theocracy. Depends on who has the most guns and people. The beauty of a democracy which is seen as legitimate is that, when one side loses, they know that the loss is temporary and/or place value in the procedures for solving disputes themselves, and that there are non-violent procedural ways of trying to go ahead and attempt to gain power next time. Think of the 2000 presidential election.
[/ QUOTE ]
Moorobot,
I too think the concept of the "legitimate force" is extremely important to ordinary citizens. But why does this necessitate democracy? And even if that perception exists, why does that necessarily mean the government is admirable? You know the standard argument about the uselessness of a single vote - using probability, there is a very small chance that a single vote could ever change the outcome of a democratic election.
But it seems that people love the CONCEPT of democracy nevertheless. Maybe the
illusion of legitimacy is more important than normative legitimacy itself. And why is that laudable? Kim Jong Il rules as a demi-god within his culture of personality in North Korea, but a legitimate one who has condemned his people to backwardness and want.
So the most a thoughtful person could assert is
that "legitimacy" is at best a necessary, not sufficient condition for proper "governance". According to libertarians, perhaps there is a better trade-off between legitimacy and purely materialistic considerations (being wealthier) because an ideal designer would be willing to make more trade-offs between the former in favor of the latter, from our reactions to theocratic and dictatorial examples around the world.
And according to ACists, they completely refuse this reasoning in terms of their science of
praxeology. According to them, legitimacy can have no meaning once ONE person rejects their governance as "illegitimate". Any concept of enforcing "legitimacy" to them is coercion, no matter how many others agree. I think that's hopelessly idealistic too, but I think your argument, keeping in mind their moral universe, fails. It's also disturbing when you consider self-deception is a large part of that concept of legitimacy, and self-deception not something that many moral philosophies would encourage, even on a macro scale.