• 2 Posts
  • 112 Comments
Joined 5 months ago
cake
Cake day: November 1st, 2024

help-circle
  • frozenspinach@lemmy.mltoMemes@lemmy.mlLick the boot clean
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    3 days ago

    It sounds like for you the signature of legitimacy is not the soundness of legal judgments as developed within consensus and consent and principle based deliberation, but their enforceability with weapons. And so I think we probably have diametrically opposite ideas of what renders laws legitimate.



  • frozenspinach@lemmy.mltoMemes@lemmy.mlLick the boot clean
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    3 days ago

    but a set of agreements that don’t have the power of law.

    Rule of law is about having a culture of respect for law as a legitimate product of democratic institutions. If law is only real to you because it’s “real” in the sense of boots, batons and assault rifles, the ‘power’ you are interested in is not the power of law.














  • Indeed, the way to combat bad media is to dispute it with good media, not hide it away and pretend it doesn’t exist.

    I would call this a marketplace of ideas fallacy. Rumor and misinformation rise to the top ever bit as much as good argument, and poisoning those conversations with bad faith is now part of an explicit ideological strategy to weaponize those spaces. That phenomenon is as real as thoughtful deliberation, I would say more so.

    So if you believe "combat bad with good’ works as a matter of practice, I think that argument is obviously unsustainable. If it’s “bad things will happen but we should keep it that way as a matter of principle” it’s at least a more coherent argument. I wouldn’t agree with it but I can understand why someone would find it at least a respectable idea.