Cross Effects - Sign Up, Discussion Page

[Cherry Lover]

All I will say is that I consider anarchism more deluded ideology than even communism.

Whether or not you support anarchism as a practical system, I am still right. Unless you can give an actual justification of why the authority of someone like Gil or Karna (who was never elected and has no support whatsoever from the population of the Nexus) would be legitimate, then you have not got a leg to stand on.

There is, perhaps, an argument for whether authority is necessary, but I don't think you can really justify saying that any authority is fundamentally legitimate even when taken outside the context of the society they have authority in.

[Brahmastra]

Karna didn't end up with power because he had legitimacy, he ended up with power because he defeated and often killed anyone who said he didn't.

Actually Karna obtained the title of King of Anga through being given the title by Duryodhana, which is as legitimate as you'd get at the time. You'd be correct in that he conquered the world for Duryodhana by force, however.

[Gray]

^^^This, it would require more psychologically to accept his adult children from the future than for him not to.

In all likelyhood he would not even consider the story about Sakura, if ever, till he got home and the second kid Popped out, that might get him thinking.

EDIT; Holy crap when did that third command seal appear? Yay now I can join a grail war!

Technically Seals 7 through 9 but yeah I get the point.

[Cherry Lover]

Karna didn't end up with power because he had legitimacy, he ended up with power because he defeated and often killed anyone who said he didn't.

Actually Karna obtained the title of King of Anga through being given the title by Duryodhana, which is as legitimate as you'd get at the time. You'd be correct in that he conquered the world for Duryodhana by force, however.

Well, yeah, that's what I mean.

And, how did Duryodhana get to be King...?

Even if you say something along the lines of "from God" (which is the standard way of legitimising authority), that doesn't work too well when you're talking of a world that has a large number of incompatible mythologies.

[Brahmastra]

And, how did Duryodhana get the title...?

Even if you say something along the lines of "from God", that doesn't work too well when you're talking of a world that has a large number of incompatible mythologies.

Duryodhana is the eldest prince of the Kaurava line, he was technically the rightful ruler of India. He was within his rights.

If you want a comparison, it's basically the Queen of England making someone a Duke.

[Cherry Lover]

And, how did Duryodhana get the title...?

Even if you say something along the lines of "from God", that doesn't work too well when you're talking of a world that has a large number of incompatible mythologies.

Duryodhana is the eldest prince of the Kaurava line, he was technically the rightful ruler of India. He was within his rights.

Well, yes, but only in so far as you consider his rule legitimate, and I can't see any fundamental reason (aside from "because I have the biggest stick") why it should be.

If you want a comparison, it's basically the Queen of England making someone a Duke.

Sure, but the Queen doesn't really have any fundamental legitimacy either. She rules because one of her distant ancestors conquered the country 950 years ago and she is the one of his many descendants that happened to get picked as the heir based on the rules he made up. She is only a "legitimate" ruler because no-one really wants to overthrow her.

[Arch-Magos Winter]

Actually Parliment made them in 1701. And William the Conquer's direct line is dead, I think.

[Umbra of Chaos]

Well, yes, but only in so far as you consider his rule legitimate, and I can't see any fundamental reason (aside from "because I have the biggest stick") why it should be.

This seems to be the best reason. I think  that having biggest stick is a pretty convincing reason to have authority.

[Cherry Lover]

Actually Parliment made them in 1701.

Well, Parliament did change the rules slightly, yes. Even so, though, that Parliament was hardly representative of the people as a whole (only a few percent could vote), and Parliament's power was given to it by the king in the first place (and that came about as a result of several wars where the monarch lost), so even Parliament formally-speaking only gets legitimacy because the monarch says it has legitimacy.

And William the Conquer's direct line is dead, I think.

Well, his direct male line certainly is, but I think that the current monarch can be directly traced back to him through female descendants.

Well, yes, but only in so far as you consider his rule legitimate, and I can't see any fundamental reason (aside from "because I have the biggest stick") why it should be.

This seems to be the best reason. I think  that having biggest stick is a pretty convincing reason to have authority.

Sure, but that's basically what I was arguing in the first place. Axe Cop can say "I'm a Cop" because he's strong enough to back it up, and he considers it his duty to enforce the law of the land whether or not he is officially recognised as a police officer.

[Arch-Magos Winter]

Well, yes, but only in so far as you consider his rule legitimate, and I can't see any fundamental reason (aside from "because I have the biggest stick") why it should be.

This seems to be the best reason. I think  that having biggest stick is a pretty convincing reason to have authority.

That it is. It's why the US is the big dog on the world stage. Gunboat diplomacy is still quite effective, especially when you've got the most boats.

[Knick]

So we should not put up new charater sheets till the new rules are announced right?

[Brahmastra]

Apparently not. I have already prepared my new one and fixed the only of my old ones that need fixing.

[Gray]

Just because someone rules with the reason "I have the biggest stick" doesn't automatically make their rule a tyranny. Besides if the ruler doesn't have the biggest stick there will be someone who comes along with that stick and takes over. Sometimes you need to acquire a big stick to preemptively stop any other stick wielders from coming at you regardless of the legitamacy of your rule.

[Brahmastra]

Basically what Gray is saying. Mike is literally approaching this like obtaining power automatically makes you a monstrous tyrant and an illegitimate ruler.

[Cherry Lover]

Just because someone rules with the reason "I have the biggest stick" doesn't automatically make their rule a tyranny. Besides if the ruler doesn't have the biggest stick there will be someone who comes along with that stick and takes over. Sometimes you need to acquire a big stick to preemptively stop any other stick wielders from coming at you regardless of the legitamacy of your rule.

No, it doesn't, but nor does it make your rule legitimate.

Basically what Gray is saying. Mike is literally approaching this like obtaining power automatically makes you a monstrous tyrant and an illegitimate ruler.

No, I'm not. I never said that at all. I just said that, ultimately, there isn't really such a thing as "legitimate authority", it's just whatever you can enforce (either by persuasion or by owning the biggest stick). It doesn't make you a tyrant, and it doesn't make your rule any less legitimate than anyone else's, because all power comes from what you can enforce, ultimately.