|
Take a moment to conceive of an Objectivist government. Would its legitimacy be derived from a social contract like the oft-mentioned "consent of the governed," or is government's legitimacy derived from the requirements of life? Since Objectivists are not Anarchists, they believe government should exist to defend against the infringement of a man's right to his own life, and deliver just and objective punishments therefore. But that authority stems from the conditions of life -- that not all men are rational, are capable of violating the rights of others, and are generally not capable of issuing unbiased punishments in the aftermath of a dispute. Thus, is consent a legitimate source of government authority?
showing 2 of 5
show all
|
|
Government derives its legitimacy from man's nature, not from "consent of the governed." A government can be legitimate regardless of how many people endorse it. "Consent of the governed" does not imply a contract, social or otherwise. A criminal cannot escape judgment by saying that they do not consent to be governed. I view "consent of the governed" to be shorthand for saying that people are morally empowered to create a government to protect their objective rights, and when they do, they recognize that they must also voluntarily delegate their right of self-defense (except in emergency situations) to that government; there is no right of vigilantism. |
Consent in the sense of the proposed government will almost always reduce back to contractual agreement of some sort. The benefits received from consensual agreement to a government on Objectivist principles is a prime motivation to do so. That there are those irrational and therefore less inclined to see the benefit is a side issue. Being unprotected by law, through ones consent not to be governed by it, has its own hazards - causality can be a harsh mistress. There is no need to 'enforce' a government on those unwilling to recognise it as beneficial to their existence.
I suppose I see government as a moral necessity -- considering the fact that men are not angels and subject to irrationality. Thus, even in a society of anarchists, the absolvement of government would still be an immoral act. This leads me to believe that government's legitimacy is not derived from consent, but rather from reality and the nature of man?
Am I wrong?
Government needs the consent of the people whose rights it is defending, not the consent of the people it is defending them against.
Legitemacy in the sense of purpose and need, yes, it relates to the requirements of living qua man. As an aside, to be fair to AnCaps, most AnCap models have legal and justice systems - Objectivists differ in the advocation of the monopoly of Government, in this case the monopoly of force.
what gives the government its legitimacy is how consistently it upholds individual rights. The social contract theory is a legitimate but inexact and failed attempt to name the tacit agreement that underlies a society, but which is better known as the trader principle