When it bites me on the leg.

But seriously, the litmus test for me is, for lack of a better word, sensitivity. That is, how much attention has this presumed authority paid to the various sides of an issue? What course of reasoning has given one side more weight than another? And what is this authority's agenda? Is it honestly on display, are there ulterior motives, are the best interests of humanity considered?

Most authorities have a developed track record, in which there are inevitable contradictions. For example, opponents of war with Iraq have rallied around former weapons inspector Scott Ritter, who has been critical of the Bush administration's war plans and foreign policy. I imagine some give Ritter credence simply because he supports their position. I hope such people are few. For myself, I consider his background as both a weapons inspector and a Gulf War veteran. The former attests to direct experience with the particular problem at hand—namely, weapons of mass destruction developed by the Hussein regime— while the latter simply flags that he is not a total peacenik (not that there's anything wrong with that.) Furthermore, what has Ritter really to gain from opposing something most of the world would prefer by default, the removal of the Hussein regime and the establishment of a democratic Iraqi government? One can presume Ritter himself prefers such a plan. Without getting bogged down in the argument itself, that Ritter is willing to put himself on the line, his standing with the weapons inspection bureaucracy and his relationship with the US military and state department tells me that he is at least worth listening to. Whether or not he's right is another matter.

To expand the question to governance, "legitimate authority" has been determined in the modern era by the "consent of the governed." Even monarchies have to be seen to reflect the will of the people, or else they are considered tyrants. And tyrants, as demonstrated by the recent Iraqi election, need to appear "legitimate" by at least a fraud of an election process. But as Election 2000 in the USA also showed, even real democracies have a hard time determining the "consent of the governed."

Anyway, I hope that helps get this party started. Discuss!

I was asking the question primarily about legitimate governance. Thanks, Kevin, for exapnding it.

Kevin raises an intersting point. In a democracy, where the citizens have some influence on political decisions, how do we gather the information necessary to make our own informed decisions? This may not be rocket science to the web-savvy, but we still have to filter and integrate in some way and on some basis.

Finally, how do you all know "the consent of the governed" when you see it? Elections are one possible visible means, but as the recent referendum in Iraq demonstrates, they are not always sufficient.

Hopefully this won't be two men talking across the country via advanced technology ("get a room!"), but I like Martial's questions, so here goes:

I'll start with the last first. Ideally, an election would have 100% voter participation and the greatest possible accessibility for voters to participate. According to recent reports (see Mark Kleiman's blog), Broward County in Florida does not have enough voting machines to allow every voter in the county to vote within the time alotted. Meanwhile, we in Oregon enjoy the luxury of voting by mail, dropping our ballots at a drop box on election day or actually voting in a booth. In neither case can we guarantee 100% voter participation (free will being what it is), but in the latter, at least all eligible voters are given the opportunity.

I hope someone tackles the question of determining voter "eligibility." Here's a start: in some states (like Florida and I think Oregon), convicted felons are permanently denied the right to vote, even after serving their sentences. Wuddup wit dat?

As for gathering information, that is trickier. Most of us, web savvy or not, depend upon the mainstream news media to get information and a variety of opinions, official, expert and otherwise, to organize that information. Everyone knows these sources are biased, although we disagree on the direction on the slant (I say it's right, Glenn Reynolds says it's left.) Yet everyone thinks they have the analytical tools to arrive at an objective conclusion and vote/agitate/protest/etc. accordingly. For the most part, we have a good faith compact with our news sources, not to mention the parties, pulpits and other communities to which we belong to act in our best interests by giving us the information we need.

But how do we actually know these are legitimate? Epistemologically, we just don't. But intuitively, I'd say we just know it when we see it. Which sounds like a problem for Dr. Oliver Sacks.

OK, I'm watching the returns, and just finished my second beer.
How do you know a legitimate authority when you see one?

When the officer gingerly approaches my car window with his hand on his gun,
even though I have both hands on the top of the wheel.
He says "DO YOU KNOW HOW FAST YOU WERE GOING ???"
I honestly say, to his legitimate authority,
"yes sir, 87 mph" (in a 55).

It's always bought me a 65 in a 55. A "road user fee".

Sorry, I know you guys are serious.
Dan

What is "authority"? Best answer i have at this hour is someone whose instructions you will obey. My boss is an authority, so is my wife, my father, and various uniformed employees of the state of california, many (but not all) of whom carry guns. Lets also include the guy who mugged me a few years back -- he clearly had authority over the contents of my wallet.

What is "legitimate"? Those figures whose authority I voluntarily recognize. Compare: some big slow dopy guy walks up and asks for a buck. This is panhandling. Same guy points a gun. This is a mugging. In the first case, no authority. In the second, no legitimacy. Second comparison: Big Crown Vic with flashing lights on the roof and an insignia on the door pulls up behind me. I stop. Guy gets out, comes to my window and asks for my license. Gun or no gun, he has authority in his capacity as a police officer, and legitimate authority because I have chosen to live in this state. If I dont want to stop for cops, I'll need to find a government where traffic cops do not have the consent of the populace to stop speeders.

But its late and im cranky about the shellacking the dems took. So this post might not make any sense.

I find it interesting that some people here seem to be equating authority with force, or with the ability to use force. To me a legitimate authority - in the form of government - is one that sustains and honors the social contract between itself and the people who have raised it to power. By this I mean following those people's wishes and working for the greater good of all.

"Consent of the governed" is a tricky term when used in the sense of the recent Iraqi referendum - in fact, it is an outright lie, as no political choice can be made by the people when no choice is available to them. Tolerating that state of oppression is also a choice, albeit one made in the interests of basic survival, but I consider Saddam's government an illegitimate authority, nonetheless.

Do I contradict myself?

A classic definition of the state concedes to it the monopoly on force. Many people feel that without at least an implicit threat in defense of the laws, anarchy (in the mob sense) would prevail. Authority, therefore, offers that threat which leads, ideally, to a level and safe field.

One point I am getting out of the posts above is that upholding the laws in a consistent, non-arbitrary way (but with the discretion to recognize the humanity of the guy pulled over for speeding) is one way for authority, and its threats, to be considered legitimate.

I don't.

No such animal.

At the end of the day, any authority worth the name has both the ability and the willingness to point a gun at me and deprive me of the fruits of my productivity.

That's never legitimate. That's slavery.

It really doesn't matter to me how equitably this outrage is applied to my fellow citizens. The chains do *not* grow lighter when borne by all.

Anyone remember the old version of Planet of the Apes? The Gorilla/General wasn't troubled with deconstructionism, political theory, or concepts of legitimacy, consent, or ethics. My recollection is that his comment was something along the lines of..."The only thing that matters is power. Naked merciless force!"

Interesting. We currently have a majority who see "authority" in "force", pure and simple.

What then is the basis for human cooperation? How do people reach the agreements that allow them to live together in peace and safety and to further their prosperity? Communities do often take on tasks for the good of all (developing marketplaces, building and maintaining irrigation systems, educating the young, I could go on and on). Are they always forced?

In my experience, the monopoly on "force" is hardly the single determinant of a state, either legitimate or illegitimate. Neither is a willingness to use force the only determinant of authority. If a state (or a mayor or village headman) relied solely on force for the agreement on his authority, that society would probably be highly unstable and would definitely inspire resistance.

But for those who disagree with me about force, let me ask the question in a cynical way:

What do authorities do to co-opt people (like Martial) into accepting their legitimacy? What do I get out of it?

I'm not saying that "force" has no place in a definition of authority, but I think we need to go beyond it in order to capture the richness of our own everyday experience.

Plato points out a serious difficulty in the Republic. To be just, a government must be run by deliberation using rational principles. Insofar as a government bases itself on deliberation, however, there is a diminished sense of piety among its citizens, because its actions seem to be just the naked will of man. Hence the famous "noble lie," which gives everyone a myth that the nation has sprung from the earth itself.

My point here is that authority demands some sense of piety (reverence? respect?) or else it is just the use of force of some against others. A fully legitimate authority would be one that all of its citizens felt an identity with. It need not be a democracy. In fact, given how much easier it is to identify with a king/royal family than with constitutional principles/political parties, monarchy (or some kind of tribal chieftain rule) is probably more natural and easier to sustain.

Constitutional government has attempted to solve Plato's problem by creating a civil piety for the offices of the government and the laws of the land, as opposed to the officials and the lawmakers. Thus Americans feel it is not a threat to the authority of government to despise the President, though despising the office is more problematic. It is very difficult, however, for a culture to maintain piety for something as abstract as a Constitution or an office, especially when each is consistently used as a tool for one partisan group to advance its agenda at the expense of others.

In short, I don't think legitimacy is identical with justice or force. It has to do with whether the authority seems like "one of us" or "one of them."

What does authority actually do to show you its legitimacy?

Don't fear the concrete. It is all too easy to get hung up in the abstract when thinking about these questions. That's why I asked how you know authority when you see it.

For example, I'm generally good natured about paying my taxes to the Commonwealth of Massachusetts because I was educated in its public schools. The fact that MA assists its citizens in gaining an education helps establish its legitimacy in my eyes.

From what I said above, I would say that if an authority needs to show you that it is legitimate, it is already in trouble. (Kind of like Hussein setting up an election to look like the people are behind him.)

We are born into certain groups (family, church, nation). We will identify with them naturally unless they go out of their way to assault us or each other (in which case we have to pick our loyalties). So I would say that a regime might show itself to be illegitimate by attacking you personally (witchhunts, for example) or your family (slavery) or your faith (anti-semitism in Nazi Germany).

Another possibility, which might be more germane in the US, is the thought that the government has betrayed itself, with the "itself" being the notion of the US that someone has identified with. It might be the US as Christian nation, or as an incremental project towards equality (as I saw in a blog recently).

Speaking again, purely as an ape, I have to have more than one model inorder to successfully navigate through this world. My personal ideal of legitimate authority is based on genuine competency. I will always defer to someone in a situation when I know for a fact that person has a better plan/idea/intuition than I. On the other end of the scale is daily existence. I often accept the assertions and actions generated by persons or viewpoints that I actually have no confidence in whatsoever. Being a mere monkey, I attempt to avoid attracting negative attention from authorities (legitimate or otherwise) lest they employ a little of that naked, merciless force to put me in my place.

Legitimate Authority is somewhat like legitimate parenthood. Just as illegitimate parents have reproduced without thought or provision for the consequences of their self-gratification, so too illegitimate authority operates primarily for the gratification of those controlling it's organs of power --whether that be military, economic or bureaucratic power.

Illegitimate parents act without the contractual documentation [implied in a marriage] that is the basis for resolving future issues of rights and responsibilities. And illegitimate authority acts in a way that ignores explicit contractual guarantees of rights and responsibilities that are part and parcel of constitutional law, socially-agreed on standards of human rights and responsive avenues for redress of grievances short of armed revolution.

Sorry if this is overly metaphorical and theoretical, but legitimacy is difficult to imagine in concrete terms when the world is so full of bastards.

I wonder if it is legitimate in a democracy to ask, as the Bush administration is doing, for permanent, exceptional powers to defend the nation in an endless war against an intentionally ill-defined enemy. I think the answer is no. If we reelect him we will be accepting him on the basis of the exceptional authority he is asking for, and we will no longer be living in a democracy. Think about it.