Legitimacy is Everything.

In politics, at least.

After all, the powers of government, as I have stated previously, are inherently limited. The power of the government is limited to the repressive power of the security apparatus and it's power to tax. The rest is all predicated on assistance, or at least a lack of opposition, on the part of the general populous.

Think about it. The in order to stop someone from doing something the only real choices are rendering it illegal thus sanctioning the use of force against those who engage in such behavior and taxing it to hell and back thus sanctioning the use of force against those who engage in such behavior without paying up first. To make someone do something the choices are functionally identical, you either pay people for doing it or you sanction the use of force against against those who fail to do it.

These are remarkably ham handed tools.

So, how does the government, restricted to these things, manage to exist. The amount of force that the government can bring to bear is a tiny fraction of the total force available to the people in general. I have to say that the answer is legitimacy.

Legitimacy is the belief that the rule of the government is right, just, or otherwise correct.

In the United States today the government pulls most of it's legitimate authority from the concept that it represents and is selected by the people and that law is transcendant and equally applicable.

Legitimacy of Kingdoms tends to come from the idea that the king is a powerful war leader capable of ensuring safety where there is otherwise none, that the authority of kings is annointed by religious authority, and that men surrender their natural powers to the office as part of the natural order of things.

Communist Dictatorships hinge on putting the power of the lower classes in trust, that people should not resist the will of the workers as represented by the government and that the government functions to preserve equality.

Military Dictatorships tend to be simpler in theory that the government exists to maintain security otherwise provide for those who provide security, and that resistance to the government is essentially an act of war because it damages the ability of the military to provide security.

All these governments operate differently. They all require that people accept the principles behind their kind of legitimacy as valid and at least do not actively oppose the functioning of government. It's strange how a population can accept multiple theories of legitimacy and justification for rule in a relatively short period of time with only minor things that deal with other elements.





We could probably use research into the mechanisms for legitimacy. Why do these concepts exist? Why are we predisposed to accepting the rule of others? I'm kind of afraid that if we knew those answers then they would be used against me, though.

Why I am not Progressive

In order to understand, I'll have to define terms. Progressivism is a political ideology that was originally developed to reform political and social movemens in response to the modernization of the late 1800's. This isn't what I'm talking about. I'm talking about modern Progressivism, which really isn't all that different, only applying to current issues instead of being a reaction to industrialization, urbanization, and the big changes that we faced when growing into a world power.

It's not that I oppose a lot of the touchstone issues of modern progressives. I believe that same sex couples should have the same legal rights and privledges as standard marriages. I believe that environmental conservation is important. Social Justice issues matter deeply to me. Change in these things are ultimately beneficial and I would argue inevitable. The same sex marriage issue is more an issue of the term "marriage" than anything else, redefining all laws pertaining to marriage as laws referring to civil unions would remove any reasonable opposition to that sort of thing.

There are some things that I do disagree with. My big one is extensive unionization. It's not that I don't like the idea of unions, but I am not particularly fond with what they are. Unions in skilled jobs are nothing more the medeval trade guilds in a more modern form. Even unions in the unskilled jobs that need the collective barganing to ensure that the employee's concerns are heard can kill companies when they are too powerful relative to management or are unnecesarily adversaral. Don't believe me ask Eastern Air Lines where continued labor unrest in conjunction with tough competition led to the liquidation of the entire company (and more than twenty thousand jobs) in a matter of a couple of years. Yes, companies have an obligation to their employees, but they also have obligations to the shareholders and customers. What's best for the employees needs to be weighed against what's good for everyone else. The same is true when considering the position of consumers and the shareholders. I don't believe that political power should be used to support any one of those groups at the expense of any others.

Still, even with my disagreements about unionism, universal health care, fixed rent housing, gun control, environmentalism, and the like that doesn't define my opposition to progressivism. I oppose the methodology more than anything else. The government does a lot well, but it simply does not replace other things.

The government cannot force social change. The tools of the government are repression (violence, jail time) and taxation. The government punishing people for thinking "bad" thing and rewarding them for doing "good" things is always a disaster. The fact that the government can do such a thing is bad thing. I don't care how good the change is. I don't care how much better the world can be if the change is made. The fact of the matter is that the power to define "good" and "bad" is a power that I don't trust for myself, much less anyone else. And I shudder to think what would happen if someone would decide that something that is a fundimental part of my world view is "bad".

Change on things like same sex marriage, reproductive rights, abolition of the death penalty, and immigration reform has to happen in our "marketplace of ideas" first, and follow in law only when the issue is largely settled. People have to mostly agree, or there will be horrible problems. How are those positions changed? Well, the debate we have in daily life makes those changes happen.

Fight your debt.

Recently, banks ended up paying $26 billion because they didn't follow the law, a massive class action lawsuit was successful in collecting some money. Despite all of that, they still haven't fixed it. That's right, after paying $26 billion because they were illegally foreclosing, they are still doing it. So, if you find yourself in trouble, fight it. It's never a good idea to try game the system, debt is debt and it's better for everyone if it's paid off but the banks kept poor records and often flouted the law to the point where it's an excellent idea to make that matter by fighting the bank at every step.

It got this bad because no one called them on it. Because it didn't matter for decades, they stopped bothering. That is a huge problem, and it's one of the ones that led to the problems that collapsed the real estate market.

The same thing is happening in credit card debt there are factual flaws in most records that lead to credit card collections suits. If they are trying to collect more than you think you owe, fight it in court. Ask for proof, since that debt can be thrown out entirely if they can't prove that you own it. Thanks for poor record keeping, sometimes they can't.

I'm not saying to do something stupid like assuming that a bank or credit card company won't keep track or will willingly break the law. These companies aren't stupid, and they aren't evil. These things happen because they are trying to keep track of altogether too much with poorly paid people who are improperly trained.

I am saying that you should protect yourself from problems. Make them spell out what exactly what they need from you, and establish both that you are responsible for the debt that they own. Who knows, you could get lucky. But the important bit is keeping folks honest. Our economy, and capitalism in general, only works when the rules are enforced by everyone.