Jason Kuznicki is asking some tough questions about Randy Barnett's conception of governmental legitimacy and is looking for responses. The question of legitimacy, for those not familiar with the debate, is essentially this: what makes a government legitimate? Is it the consent of the governed? Whether it conforms to preconceived notions of legitimate authority? Respect for individual rights? Many Americans have long argued that the consent of the governed grants legitimacy to a government, an idea rejected by Barnett, following Lysander Spooner. I think they are right to reject that basis for legitimacy, but as Jason points out, that leaves us with no other solid basis, at least in the sense that some people will always have different conceptions of legitimacy and will declare their government to be illegitimate. But I'm not sure that really matters. If the legitimacy of a government relied upon unanimous acceptance of its legitimacy, then no government is ever legitimate because no government will ever have unanimous acceptance by those under its rule. Jason argues for a more pragmatic approach, and I would tend to agree with him. However, I would still say that we base that pragmatism on the principle of natural rights, regardless of whether some percentage of citizens disagree with that basis.
- Log in to post comments
I'd say it's legitimate as long as it still works to protect the rights of the governed--remember, the courts are part of the gov. too, which means that just because the executive branch oversteps their authority doesn't mean the government as a whole is derelict in its duty.
Some of this debate goes back to a Marshall opinion from 1819 or so, right? The notion that this US government is one that derives its just powers from the people; which is not necessarily the same as legitimacy. If the standard for legitimacy were say a government's recognition of and adherence to the UN declaration of human rights, then it could just as easily be argued that no such government in the world exists and thus all are illegitimate.
At some point there must be a consensually agreed understanding that in the interests of a large group choosing to function cooperatively, some structural authority/ guiding/ ruling principle needs to be formed, acknowledged, respected, and witnessed as such. This task barely works for families, and certainly not well for neighborhoods--how could we ever expect there to be a legitimate government.
Spyder, Barnett actually argues that neighborhood associations represent a type of fully legitimate government by consent, where the unanimous agreement of the residents allows the government to infringe on liberties in ways that the national government never properly could. I would be interested in hearing your thoughts on this.