vvmarko at gmail.com
Fri Oct 14 22:05:49 UTC 2011
On Friday 14 October 2011 14:02:25 Ian Malone wrote:
> On 14 October 2011 13:16, Marko Vojinovic <vvmarko at gmail.com> wrote:
> > If you just restrict people by rules, it *is* legitimate for them to
> > break the rules. If instead you teach people why they should uphold the
> > rules, it *is* *not* legitimate for them to break those rules.
> > Legitimacy comes from understanding, legality comes from obedience.
> Not sure what definition of "legitimate" you are using here.
Yes, it appears to be a problem for some people in this thread.
Let me phrase in like this --- when some rules in some legal system seize to
make actual sense, it is legitimate to challenge them.
Think political revolutions, the fact that they are often completely illegal
by the laws of the countries where they happen, but can be quite legitimate,
if they change the governing system for a better one.
Think factory workers' strikes, the fact that they were illegal up to some
point in the past, but were quite legitimate due to poor working conditions of
Think software patents, the fact that they are legal in US, and the legitimacy
of the social/political/etc. movement against the laws which allow them.
From my POV, a legitimate behavior is the behavior that *makes* *sense* in a
reasonable way, while it can be against all the rules and laws currently in
force, in a given context.
So, if someone fails to explain to me why I am not allowed ssh access to my
work computer (and I *will* listen and understand reasonable explanations),
then ignoring the rule makes sense, and is therefore legitimate.
This is the way I understand the word "legitimate", and the point I wanted to
P.S. All wikipedia articles about legitimacy talk about some specific topics
(birth without marriage, political authorities, etc.), and unfortunately I
didn't find any article or definition that is generic enough... Also, I didn't
bother to search beyond wikipedia. My explanation above should be clear
More information about the users