There is no such thing as a legitimate government

[trenton]

I continued to research institutional corruption. I previously explored institutional capture of the government and various forms of propaganda designed to legitimize geopolitical goals. As I continued questioning the government, I ultimately hit the bottom of the entire structure which demonstrates that all governments are inherently illegitimate.

The core problem is the problem of authority. When trying to legitimize who should and should not have power, it creates an infinite regress which ultimately leads to circular logic or a groundless assertion. For example, imagine a government where the King has power because he was appointed by the church. Then the church has authority because they follow the Bible. Then the Bible has authority because the church says so. The infinite regress problem of legitimate authority applies to all governments including today's governments.

In the case of America, we are not actually a democracy, we are a constitutional republic. This is an important distinction because our system is inherently anti-democratic and it is designed to function without majority consent due to representatives and disproportionate voting power for rural Americans. In theory the federal government is designed to operate even if nobody votes for the next president and the electoral college does not have to follow popular vote anyway. Even so, our government pretends that it has authority due to the people's consent, when really the system is designed to operate without our consent. On top of that there appears to be a hierarchy of rights with some rights having stronger protections than others, but who gets to say what is and is not a right? If you try to use any system of logic or rationality to determine these things, then who gets to say what is and is not rational? Once again, there is an infinite regress problem.

If you follow the logic of the American government all the way down, it is fundamentally groundless and arbitrary. The government supposedly is able to operate this way because of the Constitution it is supposed to uphold. However, we can ask the question, "why does the Constitution of the United States have any authority whatsoever?" Ultimately, the Constitution has authority because the founding fathers said so. But, who elected the founding fathers and gave them the authority to make the constitution? In the end the founding fathers didn't have any legitimate authority. They were largely wealthy white men who just inserted themselves and decided they had the authority to make all of these decisions that would affect all of these people even though they only cared about a small percentage of the population anyway. From a certain point of view, the American government like all governments were never legitimate to begin with because the formation of the government always involves somebody just asserting they have the authority to make these decisions.

I thought about how I would form a government, and ran into a problem. Even if my intentions are pure and I want what is best for the maximum number of people, then what would give me the right to implement such a system even though I would never get unanimous consent? Why would I have the right to make these decisions for hundreds of millions of people? If it is impossible to get everyone to agree, then in a sense any governmental system must be coercive in some way and without the consent of all of the people it claims to serve.

The implications are that if all governments are fundamentally groundless, then there is no moral obligation to follow the laws they made. Future generations can't possibly consent to the system they were born into. Ultimately, all laws must boil down to coercion through threats or violence designed to control people who never agreed to the system. Operating within governmental structures becomes purely pragmatic, but this never solves the inherent problem of illegitimate governance. There seems to be no amount of reform within the system that could change this inherent contradiction, which might be why political attempts at solutions often fail as those making the decisions fundamentally have no ground for their authority.

The logical conclusion of this line of reasoning is Anarchism. Unanimous consent is practically impossible, thus governance must be coercive. All governments begin through arbitrary assertions of authority. Nobody can legitimately speak for millions of people without their explicit consent. In fact almost everybody operating under any system of government never gave their consent to begin with, they were just born into it. From a certain point of view, government itself can't be truthful because it is inherently dishonest and must be pragmatic just like our participation within it. All governments must operate under the lie that they are legitimate and have the right to make decisions for millions of people who never agreed to it.

Seeing as pragmatically, a society might need some form of law and order, how can we design a system with minimal illegitimate authority? Perhaps in theory it would be like a cooperative system with everybody having an equal say. However, this might carry its own problems like adjudicating what we should do when not everybody can agree. If we do a voting system, then that is still tyranny of the majority and it can be used to oppress minorities, although this still might be better than tyranny of the minority. I don't know how advanced humanity would have to be in order to transcend the need for a government altogether and what the resulting system might look like. This is a difficult problem that I don't know how to solve and there may not be any possible solution.

[Schizophonia]

@trenton 

You're not even capable of controlling (in the sense of consciously acting on) your thoughts most of the time even though they're what's most intimate to you, and by extension of having good mental health and happiness; now you're delusional about wanting to control the government.

You can criticize the structure of institutions, but you need them to ensure your integrity.

[trenton]

7 minutes ago, Schizophonia said:

@trenton 

You're not even capable of controlling (in the sense of consciously acting on) your thoughts most of the time even though they're what's most intimate to you, and by extension of having good mental health and happiness; now you're delusional about wanting to control the government.

You can criticize the structure of institutions, but you need them to ensure your integrity.

I am going to deny that I match your evaluation. I have changed a lot over the past several months and I'm no longer the same as before. I am much more peaceful and don't feel depressed at all. However, circumstances could change that bring back the sense of feeling hopeless, trapped, and better off dead, so I need to protect myself still.

The main thing that has changed is that I now see through the psychological abuse of my narcissistic family. This includes my mother who convinced me I was a sexual predator when I was six and it was one of the root causes of the suicidal thoughts as I felt unworthy of life. Rather than internalizing blame and shame, I learned to place the blame where it belongs and it is very liberating. This includes institutions that are full of victim blaming, not just my family. Therefore, by extension I am deconstructing government systems.

I don't really care about controlling the government. I have already accepted that it is impossible long ago. I can't even get my narcissistic family to stop blaming and gaslighting me. I just accept that they are full of shit and it has nothing to do with my actual worth as a human being. Attempts to control the government would likely be just as futile. Instead I prefer to understand systems and then look for how I can use this understanding to navigating them and build a better life for myself. I don't have to worry about changing the system because the entire American government is designed to resist change anyway and it has only become worse through institutional capture. The American government will probably just have to collapse through debt and geopolitical disaster if the government keeps putting people like Trump in power. My opinion matters very little in stopping the institutional capture of the government that might destroy our country in the next 5-10 years.

Currently I'm largely just following my interests and I seem to gravitate toward deconstructing propaganda and lies that I was taught. I'm not sure what you mean by me needing institutions to ensure my integrity. There are institutions that actively undermine my intellectual integrity such as indoctrination in schools that prevents critical thinking. There are institutions that undermine my moral integrity by teaching me obedience to authority which can be bad in some contexts. Maybe you mean I need institutions to ensure that a crazy fucker doesn't rape and murder me. In order to survive those situations I would need to change my character dramatically or have institutions that prevent this.

In practice we still need some kind of law and order to prevent bad faith actors from harming others, but this still does not solve the legitimacy problems which philosophers seem to have no clear answer for.

[Basman]

Government institutions are themselves collective fictions, no less legitimacy. Collective fiction require ritual to work and people need to trust the institutions to be grounded in reality. Suspension of disbelief if you will.

Something like an election is a ritual that makes an elected government legitimate even if you yourself don't agree with their politics. It is an amazing social technology. Fundamentally, a government is essentially just the monopolization of violence in an area, but it also needs to be legitimized for the population to accept a government. In monarchies and authoritarian states, the head of government is typically "chosen by god" or literally a "god". The point is that a government needs to feel real for people to give their authority to it. Having an effective institution however allows you to regulate all sorts of things that are unwanted (murder, theft, pollution, etc.) and create public goods through organized work (infrastructure, education, redistribution of wealth, etc.).

If you really want to go to the edge of collective fictions, you could say that your life has no legitimacy and it is just a matter of force to enslave you. And there are no rules that exist that could regulate that. Now we are in stone ages, where institutions barely exist. The notion of anarchy assumes that collective fictions are a bug as opposed to a feature. They are completely wrong and that kind of thinking is probably the result of premature conclusions. Imagine teaching chimps to drive. Without the ability to order themselves in accordance with the collective fiction of traffic rules, it would be complete pandemonium. Wanting to remove institutions over political grievances is like stabbing your wheels with sticks because the road is full of potholes. Anarchy isn't a serious solution to erosion of trust in institutions.

I think it is interesting that you focus so much on the legitimacy of governance instead of the reality of institutions themselves as a collective fiction. I think this is perhaps an expression of a loss of trust in institutions. A loss of trust in their ability for the government to be effective at creating a good society for everyone, which is likely due to economic exclusion and a loss of community, I would bet. This kind of loss of trust in institutions is increasing, where the common sentiment is that they don't make you feel like a legitimate citizens who's concerns are important. You don't feel like you are fully participating in society. This is a serious problem.

[Leo Gura]

Of course having control over anyone is a fiction.

You don't even have control over your dog.

Existentially, no part of God can control any other part. That's why democracy is the best form of government -- because the sovereignty of everyone is respected (at least in theory).

Government is not based on any deep truth, it is based on survival necessity and pragmatism. Government works as it works because that's what helps keep certain people alive and reproducing.

"Legitimate government" just means legit relative to certain constructed principles and norms, like not violating its own laws.

Illegitmate gov breaks it own laws, like a degenerate human does. Trump contradicts himself, as all degenerate lairs do.

Edited yesterday at 02:56 AM by Leo Gura

[RichardY]

If I were a US citizen; I'd vote for Trump in the hope of having less people to potentially compete with for base resources. Also not liking the Democrats. However, a belief I have is the world is probably going to flood. And the Rockies are the best region to survive. So, in a way I'd be for essentially no legal borders, no country. Being in the UK.

I think it would be better if things were less intensive, with intent. 20 acre chicken farming instead of 1 acre.

Other than a very small group of people, that you can physically talk with each individually. I can't see the point of personally voting. I think the covid Jab was poisonous, and all, but 1 M.P out of 300 opposed it in the UK.

To me the death penalty or perhaps exile is reasonable. The last public execution in the UK was due to be a quartering (entrails/guts removed while alive), but was commuted to a beheading by head of state King George II. Origin of the phrase laughing one's head off. The Judge regency head was Philip Yorke.

I think it's possible spirits of mercury are associated with Government as Emmanuel Swedenborg a man who also invented on paper the first viable aeroplane on paper and with a 200 I.Q. said so... Also the acting head of Government in the UK at the time, had some form of network associated with the Mercury newspaper.

[Bjorn K Holmstrom]

On 8/3/2025 at 10:20 PM, trenton said:

I continued to research institutional corruption. .... This is a difficult problem that I don't know how to solve and there may not be any possible solution.

I envision optimal governance as an ecosystem instead of a hierarchy, where legitimacy is earned from function and consent from the bottom up. Authority is held at the lowest, most local level possible, and communities can freely choose to coordinate for larger scales when necessary. This dissolves the infinite regress problem. Since no-one consents to the system they are born into, a system with minimal illegitimate authority would be based on voluntary participation and continuous consent.

We can also imagine governance models as open-source software. A community would opt to "install" a set of protocols for managing shared resources or resolving conflicts. The could adapt ("fork" to borrow a git-term) them to their unique cultural needs. Other communities might see the success and voluntarily adopt similar models. Thus, the systems scale through attraction and demonstrated effectiveness instead of coercion. To address the tyranny of the majority, the systems would have to have non-negotiable, hard-coded protections for minorities, including the right for distinct communities to opt out or veto decisions that violate their fundamental sovereignty.

I have also thought about the long-term necessity of governance. Perhaps the purpose of governance is to be a temporary scaffolding. Its primary job would be to help us heal the very conditions that make coercive government seem necessary in the first place, things like scarcity, trauma and social disconnection. By creating systems that ensure everyone have their basic needs met and by fostering restorative, regenerative, healing-centered forms of justice, we reduce the desperation and conflict that punitive systems are designed to "manage".

As society becomes healthier, more connected and more conscious, the need for the scaffolding diminishes. It can be gradually dismantled, and instead we have a society that is not coordinated by laws and enforcement, but by a deeply ingrained culture of mutual care, shared understanding and trust. This would be the advanced state you wondered about, a world where right action emerges naturally from the health of the collective.