If the majority are dumb enough to vote for it, face it: They deserve it.

They get away with lies because the majority lets them get away with it and keeps voting for them. In democratic nations, it's the fault of the ignorant, apathetic people.

None of the nations you listed have had real elections (with an exception or two, maybe, in the past year) in decades. What absolutely stupid examples. None of their rulers have been elected, so they can hardly violate promises made to get elected.

You're a troll. You're incoherent. You're probably on drugs.

Simple. Iron and blood.

Your power is legitimate if you have the strength to keep it. Elections, religion, morality, they are all irrelevant.

Xeno,

I sympathize with the view that might makes right. Though it would be more correct to say that my position on meta-ethics is anti-realism. That means I don't believe morals exist as real entities in nature. Rather, human societies invented morality to impose conformity in response to their needs. So moral talk has meaning to me in the sense that they are part of our institutions, reflect our cooperative nature, and are essential to the functioning of society, but I become impatient once moral talk presupposes that morals are real entities in nature.

So, in real life I satisfy most of the civic (not religious) moral expectations of me. In the event it happened, no one could complain that I did not perform my moral obligation to call the police if I witnessed a battery etc. I would certainly be compelled to do so, but I would not say my duty derived from obscure natural entities. Rather, it came from the expectations of being a participating member of my community, and my desire to assist other in-group members in need.

my government preserves the property of people without regard to the opinions of others as to their rights to a communal trough

Xeno,

I think there is a context where we can talk about a government's legitimacy. For example, an opportunistic usurper is illegitimate in a society where kingship is based on hereditary succession. The same could be said of a military coup in a society with a long tradition of democracy. However, this allows the possibility that legitimacy can be acquired, and has the implication that all governments were at one time illegitimate.

For these reasons, I don't think it's productive to talk about legitimacy in the context you have outlined. That doesn't mean I think political discourse is necessarily unproductive. However, I don't see the point of discussing a fluid concept as though it were immutable. When it comes to the relevant context you outlined, I believe political authority depends on possessing the resources to gain compliance. The ways this can be accomplished include mythical indoctrination, appeals to popular or institutional sentiments, the use of coercion, and appeals to reason.

Personally, I prefer that governments primarily rely on reason. Meaning, that the government justifies its authority by serving a rational function, such as providing services including security, law and order, basic welfare, civil rights, and education etc. I also like it if that government is transparent, actively minimizes corruption, and upholds values like equal opportunity and meritocracy. If my government can deliver those things to my expectations, then I am glad to give it my allegiance.

Now, I'll probably give my compliance to a government that does not meet my minimal expectations to the extent I can tolerate it. For example, I can tolerate giving 10% of my earnings to thugs who deliver very little and act like buffoons but generally leave me alone. Nevertheless, I will not defend those thugs if they get themselves in to trouble. However, if those thugs take 90% of my earnings and actively attempt to terrorize me, then they have made an enemy for life who will deliver the fiercest justice upon them should the opportunity become available.

It's Saturday... on a holiday weekend... I will chalk this up to drinking....

> Einstein wrote:

> It's Saturday... on a holiday weekend... I will chalk this up to drinking...<

When you interrupt the troll thread to warn against feeding the troll, you become the troll...

"If the majority are dumb enough to vote for it, face it: They deserve it."
Its very well possible 60 to 70 of the people voted otherwise but they still yield power. What about the minority smart ones in your example?

> The Yell wrote:

> if they're so smart they should host more barbecues to make more friends

What if smart ethical people, due to having ceased participating in what is an inherently unjust system, can't afford to host barbecues to make more friends?

lol@yell

I think our governments are doing a good job. The (western) german governments since the end of WW2, when might=right didn't work well, followed three major political guidelines:
1. Economic power is essential. The economy must be strengthend by an alliance of political parties, workers unions and the industry. This is called "cooperate market economy" and was a guide line for the Chinese. The German economy relies still on a good industrial basis, which leads in innovation and productivity. Very important is, that no german would ever allow high inflation from abroad. Germans hate inflation and no german governemnt would dare to allow some Greek or French to induce high inflation to Germany.
2. Covered rule. WW1 and WW2 showed, that Germany cannot rule Europe because of interventions from the US and other nations far from Europe. But Europe needed and needs the german economy. For decades Europe was ruled by the cooperation between France and (West) Germany. France took the part of the open ruler and Germany paid the bills. But in the end, who pays has its part in the decision process. Only in the last years Germany had to drop this covered rule. Now Germany guides, but not to well. That is not Germanys role. But France elected an Socialist for president...
3. Reliability and creditability. Most german governments ruled their full term (4 years). Our politicans are well prepared for government due work in parliament or as ministers in the state governments. Radical changes in policies are very rare. Everything is designed for long term development. Corruption or incompetence is not tolerated, neither by the people nor by the chancelor. Both react very sensitive, if the government fails the expectations too much.

I wish Amerikans didn't love inflation, incompetence, and corruption. Hell, a majority like being lied to and treated like idiot children.