1381 réponses à ce sujet

[111987]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

111987 wrote...

And until Cerberus is retroactively pardoned or waived from a position of power, they are illegitimate. And illegal.

That's not how legitimacy works, as you yourself have constructed.

To be illegal is not the same as illegitimate. The two words are not synonyms. Legality derives from the ruling authority, but legitimacy does not (or else there could be no ruling authority).

Okay. I can see for some reason you want to turn this into a huge debate about legitimacy.

Since we've established that Cerberus is illegal, let's move on the legitimate. Whose theory would you like the work under? There are many political theories of legitimacy. As I was saying before, what I am working under is Locke's theory; consent. The people being governed have to consent to being ruled by the government, both explicitly and implicitly.

In the (irrelevant) scenario where Cerberus takes over the galaxy, they are not legitimate (according to this definition) because the people they are ruling did not consent to be ruled by Cerberus. IF the galaxy, at the end of the war said, "Cerberus, we wish to be ruled by you" then they become legitimate. HOWEVER, that does NOT erase their pact actions and make them retroactively legitimate. They simply cease being illegitimate.

However, what confuses me is why we are even talking about this in the first place. At this point in time, Cerberus has not taken over the galaxy. They are simply a group formed by one man without the support of that man's government, whom commit illegal acts. They are currently illegitimate because other authorities, namely the governments of humanity and the other species, do not recognize Cerberus as a government agency as they would the Spectres, for example.

All Cerberus needs to do is  force the other races to submit by threatening something worse if they do. That would consitute your working definition of 'willing.'

Well that would give Cerberus the explicit consent of the races, but not the implicit consent. Working under Locke's theory, you need both...also the coercion is still illegal because it breaks the previously established laws of Citadel space.

[Dean_the_Young]

111987 wrote...

Okay. I can see for some reason you want to turn this into a huge debate about legitimacy.

Turn? That's what I've been on you about from the start.

Since we've established that Cerberus is illegal, let's move on the legitimate. Whose theory would you like the work under?

I've been asking you this from the start.

They are currently illegitimate because other authorities, namely the governments of humanity and the other species, do not recognize Cerberus as a government agency as they would the Spectres, for example.

Legitimacy transcends sequence of recognition, however. Legitimcy of groups can't derive from governments, for example, because groups can pre-date the existence or awareness of governments. The Turian Heirarchy's legitimacy can't be said to be derived from the recognition of the Citadel races, for example, because the Heirarchy's development, formation, and everything about it pre-dated by the Citadel contact.

Well that would give Cerberus the explicit consent of the races, but not the implicit consent. Working under Locke's theory, you need both...also the coercion is still illegal because it breaks the previously established laws of Citadel space.

The previous laws of Citadel space are null and void when they are replaced. Those laws derive only from the Council that created and kept them in force through coercion.

And, of course, a victorious Cerberus could simply apply the Spectre principal to all its agents, and thus be break and rewrite the previously established laws within the scope of the previously established laws.

[111987]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

They are currently illegitimate because other authorities, namely the governments of humanity and the other species, do not recognize Cerberus as a government agency as they would the Spectres, for example.

Legitimacy transcends sequence of recognition, however. Legitimcy of groups can't derive from governments, for example, because groups can pre-date the existence or awareness of governments. The Turian Heirarchy's legitimacy can't be said to be derived from the recognition of the Citadel races, for example, because the Heirarchy's development, formation, and everything about it pre-dated by the Citadel contact.

There isn't really a legal precedent I can work with here, as we're dealing with a galactic government and other species. I would say though that in this case, the legitimacy of an organization has to come from the government of the other species because they are the best possible representation of said species desires and thus the givers of that species consent. Without the approval of the governments and thus the implied lack of consent from the other species, Cerberus can be labelled illegitimate.

The Turian Hierarchy was legitimate on Pavalen because the Turian people gave both explicit and implict consent to have them be the government of their nations. The Turian Hierarchy, when it met the Citadel government, maintained its legitimacy in the eyes of the Citadel government because the other species consented to allow the Turians in.

The previous laws of Citadel space are null and void when they are replaced. Those laws derive only from the Council that created and kept them in force through coercion.

And, of course, a victorious Cerberus could simply apply the Spectre principal to all its agents, and thus be break and rewrite the previously established laws within the scope of the previously established laws.

Of course the previous laws are null and void when replaced. However when Cerberus was taking over the galaxy, their actions would be considered illegal. And they would continue being illegal until Cerberus established itself as the legitimate government of the galaxy. Even if that happened, their previous actions would still be considered illegal; not under the current laws, but under the laws that Cerberus was held to at the time of those actions. Of course at that point it wouldn't really matter, but still.

[Arkitekt]

If it wouldn't "really" matter, there's no "but still". Nobody cares about stuff that doesn't "really" matter.

[Dean_the_Young]

111987 wrote...

There isn't really a legal precedent I can work with here, as we're dealing with a galactic government and other species.

Of course there is. Nations and cultures.

The difference is size, not intrensic nature.

I would say though that in this case, the legitimacy of an organization has to come from the government of the other species because they are the best possible representation of said species desires and thus the givers of that species consent.

Why does a government hold that by default? What about illegitimate governments?

Without the approval of the governments and thus the implied lack of consent from the other species, Cerberus can be labelled illegitimate.

Who legitimized those governments? Moreover, why is the consent of foreign groups a requirement for self-legitimization? Was the Alliance illegitimate rulers of Earth before the Council recognized it?

Again, this is asking what you consider the root of legitimacy to be. Status-quo acceptance? Popular support? Foreign support? Ideological adherence?

The Turian Hierarchy was legitimate on Pavalen because the Turian people gave both explicit and implict consent to have them be the government of their nations. The Turian Hierarchy, when it met the Citadel government, maintained its legitimacy in the eyes of the Citadel government because the other species consented to allow the Turians in.

As a non-democracy, the claim that the Turian people gave consent, rather than had consent coerced from them, is highly dubious. A government's existence does not imply the consent of those it rules over, only their acceptance. (Just look at proxy-governments, vassal states, or occupational governments.)

The other species of Council Space also had no say in the admission of the Turians: only the Council (two species) have that say, both in regards to the Heirarchy's entry and also in its elevation to the Council.

Of course the previous laws are null and void when replaced. However when Cerberus was taking over the galaxy, their actions would be considered illegal. And they would continue being illegal until Cerberus established itself as the legitimate government of the galaxy.

Yet you established the prior laws as a barrier to legitimacy.

Even if that happened, their previous actions would still be considered illegal; not under the current laws, but under the laws that Cerberus was held to at the time of those actions. Of course at that point it wouldn't really matter, but still.

But you've also established that prior illegalities can be pardoned and retroactively justified from a position of power. The Citadel Conventions on prophibited forms of warfare were in many respects violated by the Council during the Krogan rebellions. Especially the genophage.

Modifié par Dean_the_Young, 01 décembre 2011 - 04:37 .

[111987]

Arkitekt wrote...

If it wouldn't "really" matter, there's no "but still". Nobody cares about stuff that doesn't "really" matter.

This whole scenario where Cerberus takes over the galaxy also doesn't really matter, as it could never happen either.

[Dean_the_Young]

Well, except in ME3. And after ME3, really.

[Arkitekt]

111987 wrote...

Arkitekt wrote...

If it wouldn't "really" matter, there's no "but still". Nobody cares about stuff that doesn't "really" matter.

This whole scenario where Cerberus takes over the galaxy also doesn't really matter, as it could never happen either.

Scenarios do matter, since without metagaming, they can still go for the prize. What does not matter is some kind of nebulous "illegitimacy" or "illegality" that has no basis whatsoever once the citadel is submitted to Cerberus.

[Dean_the_Young]

Arkitekt wrote...

111987 wrote...

Arkitekt wrote...

If it wouldn't "really" matter, there's no "but still". Nobody cares about stuff that doesn't "really" matter.

This whole scenario where Cerberus takes over the galaxy also doesn't really matter, as it could never happen either.

Scenarios do matter, since without metagaming, they can still go for the prize. What does not matter is some kind of nebulous "illegitimacy" or "illegality" that has no basis whatsoever once the citadel is submitted to Cerberus.

Nonsense. I'm sure that one of these days, if some clever lawyer crafts the perfect and indisputable logical argument about how the South should have been allowed to secede during the American Civil War, the modern US government will happily stand aside and see the resurrection of the Confederacy.

Really.

[111987]

[quote]Dean_the_Young wrote...

Why does a government hold that by default? What about illegitimate governments?
[/quote]

A species government holds that by default because that is the best way this can be handled. Having the government of each nation of each planet of every species would make running the galaxy impossibly inefficient. It isn't a perfect solution, but each species needs a representative.

I have no data to speculate on illegitimate governments. I would assume all Council species have legitimate governments, but we simply don't have that level of information.


[quote]Dean_the_Young wrote...
Who legitimized those governments?[/quote]

How could I possibly know that? Do you?

[quote]Dean_the_Young wrote...
Moreover, why is the consent of foreign groups a requirement for self-legitimization? Was the Alliance illegitimate rulers of Earth before the Council recognized it?[/quote]

As I say in the Turian example, the Alliance was legitimate because the governments of Earth all gave explicit and implict consent to be subject to the Alliance's authority. When the Alliance encountered the Citadel government, they became legitimate in the eyes of the Citadel government as well. [/quote]

[quote]Dean_the_Young wrote...
Again, this is asking what you consider the root of legitimacy to be. Status-quo acceptance? Popular support? Foreign support? Ideological adherence?[/quote]

I've already said this. Explicit and implicit consent of the people you are governing gives that government legitimacy. When joining a group like the Citadel government, legitimacy is brought about by the consent of the other species governments' consenting to allow you into their ranks (so to speak).

[quote]Dean_the_Young wrote...

As a non-democracy, the claim that the Turian people gave consent, rather than had consent coerced from them, is highly dubious. A government's existence does not imply the consent of those it rules over, only their acceptance. (Just look at proxy-governments, vassal states, or occupational governments.) [/quote]

I have no information to speculate on the political history of the Turians beyond what I have already said.

[quote]Dean_the_Young wrote...

Yet you established the prior laws as a barrier to legitimacy.[/quote]
What? Did you not understand what I just wrote?

The prior laws act as a barrier to legitimacy until those laws no longer apply.

[quote]Dean_the_Young wrote...

But you've also established that prior illegalities can be pardoned and retroactively justified from a position of power. The Citadel Conventions on prophibited forms of warfare were in many respects violated by the Council during the Krogan rebellions. Especially the genophage.

[/quote]

Did I say prior illegalities can be pardoned and retroactively justified?

The Council races did commit illegal actions during the Krogan Rebellions. I am not arguing that the Citadel government is perfect, far from it.

[111987]

Saphra Deden wrote...

111987 wrote...

Since we've established that Cerberus is illegal, let's move on the legitimate. Whose theory would you like the work under? There are many political theories of legitimacy. As I was saying before, what I am working under is Locke's theory; consent. The people being governed have to consent to being ruled by the government, both explicitly and implicitly.

You have a very liberal definition of "Consent". A self-serving definition, I might add. It speaks rather poorly of you.

In what way does it speak poorly of me?

What part are you confused about; instead of thinly veiled insults, why not just ask for clarification and I will try my best to explain.

[Arkitekt]

111987 wrote...

I've already said this. Explicit and implicit consent of the people you are governing gives that government legitimacy. When joining a group like the Citadel government, legitimacy is brought about by the consent of the other species governments' consenting to allow you into their ranks (so to speak).

So Cerberus is legitimate because its soldiers / scientists / agents consent to its legitimacy?

[111987]

Arkitekt wrote...

111987 wrote...

I've already said this. Explicit and implicit consent of the people you are governing gives that government legitimacy. When joining a group like the Citadel government, legitimacy is brought about by the consent of the other species governments' consenting to allow you into their ranks (so to speak).

So Cerberus is legitimate because its soldiers / scientists / agents consent to its legitimacy?

...no...because those are individuals...

[Arkitekt]

Say what? So the humans who legitimize the Alliance are what? Collectives?

[Dean_the_Young]

111987 wrote...


A species government holds that by default because that is the best way this can be handled. Having the government of each nation of each planet of every species would make running the galaxy impossibly inefficient. It isn't a perfect solution, but each species needs a representative.

Many species get along quite well without a representative. In fact, most species DON'T have representatives. In practice, only three do before Humanity: the Salarians, the Turians, and the Asari. All other species 'representatives' don't really represent in terms of getting things.

I have no data to speculate on illegitimate governments. I would assume all Council species have legitimate governments, but we simply don't have that level of information.

We know quite a bit about the nature of various governments. The Citadel is a racial caste system, in which your species of birth decides what jobs and privilages are open to you. The Asari are a direct democracy. The Salarians are status-quo political machinations. The Turians are a militarized meritocratic autocracy. The Quarians are a de-facto democracy with the vestige of military law. The Alliance is a representative democracy with a charter to represent the members of its species who don't choose to leave. The Krogan are feuding warlords and clans. The Drell are incorporated members of the Hanar.


Depending on how you define legitimacy, a number of those species may have illegitimate governments.

How could I possibly know that? Do you?

Sure, since I subscribe to democratic legitimization. In a lot of cases, no one legitimizes these governments. They simply exist.

Your definition of legitimacy can vary.

As I say in the Turian example, the Alliance was legitimate because the governments of Earth all gave explicit and implict consent to be subject to the Alliance's authority. When the Alliance encountered the Citadel government, they became legitimate in the eyes of the Citadel government as well.

Now what if the Citadel government had not recognized the Alliance? What then?

You have two different derivations here, which could well be opposed in principal.

I've already said this. Explicit and implicit consent of the people you are governing gives that government legitimacy. When joining a group like the Citadel government, legitimacy is brought about by the consent of the other species governments' consenting to allow you into their ranks (so to speak).

But then the only legitimate governments in the galaxy are the democracies: the Alliance, the Quarians, and the Asari. The autocracies that are forced upon others aren't raised by the explicit and implicit consent of the people, they're forced from the top down. What illegitimate governments support can't then be considered legitimate.

Unless you get back to coerced consent is genuine legitimacy, in which case consquest and oppresion are legitimate means of establishing power.

I have no information to speculate on the political history of the Turians beyond what I have already said.

Read the codex on their race.

What? Did you not understand what I just wrote?

The prior laws act as a barrier to legitimacy until those laws no longer apply.

And then you said that they still applied. You've argued both sides, but I'll accept this clarification.

Once Cerberuc overthrows the ruling order, it will be legitimized.

Did I say prior illegalities can be pardoned and retroactively justified?

In effect, yes.

The Council races did commit illegal actions during the Krogan Rebellions. I am not arguing that the Citadel government is perfect, far from it.

But you are arguing it is legitimate, and it's legitimacy is in large part established by such means. Those means are thus also legitimate, because the Council is tolerated by those it is dominant over.

[Dean_the_Young]

Arkitekt wrote...

Say what? So the humans who legitimize the Alliance are what? Collectives?

What if the collective of Cerberus personnel agree to Cerberus's legitimacy.

[111987]

Arkitekt wrote...

Say what? So the humans who legitimize the Alliance are what? Collectives?

The Alliance was legitimized by the governments of indepdendent nations, whom in turn represented the people living in those nations.

Do you really not see the difference here?

[Arkitekt]

111987 wrote...

Arkitekt wrote...

Say what? So the humans who legitimize the Alliance are what? Collectives?

The Alliance was legitimized by the governments of indepdendent nations, whom in turn represented the people living in those nations.

Do you really not see the difference here?

Let me draw a map for you. You said that the governments get their legitimacy from their own constituents. I asked you if that makes Cerberus legitimate as well, since their constituents also consent to Cerberus existence, actions, politics, etc.

I'm just following your logic, which does not seem to reflect your opinion.

[111987]

Dean_the_Young wrote...


]Many species get along quite well without a representative. In fact, most species DON'T have representatives. In practice, only three do before Humanity: the Salarians, the Turians, and the Asari. All other species 'representatives' don't really represent in terms of getting things.

The other species have embassies that serve as their representatives.

Dean_the_Young wrote...
Now what if the Citadel government had not recognized the Alliance? What then?

You have two different derivations here, which could well be opposed in principal.

The Citadel government wouldn't really have a choice but to accept the Alliance, as the Alliance is the elected government for humanity.

Dean_the_Young wrote...
But then the only legitimate governments in the galaxy are the democracies: the Alliance, the Quarians, and the Asari. The autocracies that are forced upon others aren't raised by the explicit and implicit consent of the people, they're forced from the top down. What illegitimate governments support can't then be considered legitimate.

Unless you get back to coerced consent is genuine legitimacy, in which case consquest and oppresion are legitimate means of establishing power.

As evidenced by this thread, different people and different species will have different definitions of legitimate. I wouldn't be arrogant enough to say my definition is the only one that matters or works.

Dean_the_Young wrote...
In effect, yes.

If I did, i retract that statement.

I feel this discussion isn't really relevant to my original point, that Cerberus is illegitimate and illegal. Without the hypotheticals or anything like that, I ask you; is Cerberus, at this point in time, those two things?

Modifié par 111987, 01 décembre 2011 - 05:24 .

[111987]

Saphra Deden wrote...

111987 wrote...

In what way does it speak poorly of me?

Well you support government without representation for the citizenry. Dictatorship, in other words. Most people would consider that a negative.

You also support imperialism. Another negative.

Racism too, so another negative.

Hey, that's okay though. I support all those things too when they're convenient for me. However I don't pretend otherwise.

I support none of those things.

[111987]

Arkitekt wrote...

111987 wrote...

Arkitekt wrote...

Say what? So the humans who legitimize the Alliance are what? Collectives?

The Alliance was legitimized by the governments of indepdendent nations, whom in turn represented the people living in those nations.

Do you really not see the difference here?

Let me draw a map for you. You said that the governments get their legitimacy from their own constituents. I asked you if that makes Cerberus legitimate as well, since their constituents also consent to Cerberus existence, actions, politics, etc.

I'm just following your logic, which does not seem to reflect your opinion.

Ugh, no, because a government is not the same thing as an organization.