HL CHAPTER 3 The Government Authority Argument for Special Immunity

CHAPTER 3 The Government Authority Argument for Special Immunity
Note:3@@@@@@@@

Yellow highlight | Page: 60

There is a widespread view that governments, or at least democratic governments, have a special moral status.
Note:LA PIÙ OVVIA OBIEZIONE

Yellow highlight | Page: 61

Therefore, while it is permissible to attack an evil-doing terrorist, it is not permissible to attack an evil-doing president,
Note:PRESIDENTE TERRORISTA

Yellow highlight | Page: 61

THE CONCEPTS OF AUTHORITY AND LEGITIMACY
Note:Tttttttt

Yellow highlight | Page: 61

1. Virtuous Vani believes Americans are becoming too fat. She arrives at a 7-Eleven store brandishing a gun and declares, “From now one, no one may purchase Big Gulps.
Note:PRIMO CASO IL SALUTOSTA

Yellow highlight | Page: 61

2. Principled Peter believes Americans should not live high while other people die. He believes that we are all in this together.
Note:SECONDO CASO IL REDISTRIBZIONISTA

Yellow highlight | Page: 61

3. Decent Dani believes Americans should support one another and prioritize each others’ welfare over that of foreigners.
Note:PRIMA GLI ITALIANI

Yellow highlight | Page: 62

4. Enterprising Elon believes space exploration is a vital project. Accordingly, he builds elaborate and expensive satellites, probes, telescopes, and shuttles, and then sends each American a small bill,
Note:IL CASO DELLE COMPAGNIE DI BANDIERA

Yellow highlight | Page: 62

If Vani, Peter, Dani, or Elon were to do these things, we would probably call the police and demand that they be arrested.
Note:TUTTI E QUATTRO AL MANICOMIO

Yellow highlight | Page: 62

While we think Vani’s, Peter’s, Dani’s, and Elon’s actions are criminal, our own governments do these same things.
Note:PUZZLE

Yellow highlight | Page: 63

permission to create and enforce rules
Note:LEGITTIMITÀ

Yellow highlight | Page: 63

ability to create in others a moral obligation
Note:AUTORITÀ

Yellow highlight | Page: 63

Authority is the power that could make it impermissible for you to refuse to pay your taxes.
Note:TANTO X INTENDERSI

Yellow highlight | Page: 64

In contrast, most people who believe in government authority believe it can create additional grounds of obligation when it issues commands, edicts, laws, and so on.
Note:SE DALLA PIAZZA GRIDO...NN UCCIDETEVI L UN L ALTRO...NN ISTITUISCO UN DOVERE....X IL FORMALISTA SI CREA UN DOVERE AGGIUNTIVO

Yellow highlight | Page: 65

For instance, suppose there is no independent moral obligation to avoid drinking absinthe. But now suppose the government authoritatively forbids me from drinking it.
Note:CREARE UN DOVERE DAL NULLA

Yellow highlight | Page: 65

DISPUTED QUESTIONS ABOUT LEGITIMACY AND AUTHORITY
Note:Ttttttt

Yellow highlight | Page: 66

1. What determines whether a government has legitimacy or not?
Note:DOMANDONA

Yellow highlight | Page: 67

1. What determines whether a government has authority or not?
Note:ALTRA DOMANDONA

Yellow highlight | Page: 67

LEGITIMACY AND AUTHORITY ARE INDEPENDENT PROPERTIES
Note:Tttttttt

Yellow highlight | Page: 68

a government (or any other rule-making entity) could have one without the other.
Note:LEGITTIMITÀ AUTORITÀ

Yellow highlight | Page: 68

imagine a theory of authority called “pacifist monarchism.” This hypothetical political theory holds that we are each duty bound to obey our queen. This theory forbids all violence and coercion, though. The queen may not coerce people into following her commands. She may not employ a military or police force. She may not use violence even to stop others from acting violently. This hypothetical political theory holds that the queen is authoritative but not legitimate.
Note:ESEMPIO...MONARCHI PACIFISYA

Yellow highlight | Page: 68

it’s coherent to hold that a government might have moral permission to stand and create laws, even if no citizens have the duty to obey or defer to that government.
Note:ESEMPIO ROVESCIATO

Yellow highlight | Page: 68

governments may permissibly tax citizens, but still hold that citizens have no duty to comply and could feel free to engage in tax evasion if they can get away with it. A view like this might be mistaken, but it’s not incoherent.4
Note:ESEMPIO

Yellow highlight | Page: 69

THE IRRELEVANCE OF GOVERNMENT LEGITIMACY For
Note:Ttttttttttt

Yellow highlight | Page: 69

The Super-Duper Democratic Legitimacy Thesis
Note:Tttttttttttt

Yellow highlight | Page: 69

A democratic electorate may legitimately do whatever it damn well pleases. It may even implement horrifically unjust policies.
Note:DEMOCRATICISMO

Yellow highlight | Page: 69

The reason I can grant that democratic governments may legitimately do as they please, without thereby undermining the moral parity thesis, is that once we distinguish correctly between authority and legitimacy, it turns out legitimacy has little bearing on whether it’s permissible to resist government.
Note:IL TRUCCO DI SEPARARES LEGITTIMITÀ DA AUTORITÀ

Yellow highlight | Page: 70

Legitimacy and authority are independent properties, and a government could conceivably have one but lack the other.
Note:LA LEVA X AVERE UN GOVERNO E ANCHE UNO STANDARD MORALE

Yellow highlight | Page: 70

One way to illustrate this is to think of a boxing match. In a boxing match, both boxers have permission to punch each other.
Note:BOXING MATCH

Yellow highlight | Page: 71

GOVERNMENTS PROBABLY DON’T HAVE ANY AUTHORITY, PERIOD
Note:Ttttttttttttt

Yellow highlight | Page: 71

Democratic legitimacy does not do the work that the defender of special immunity needs it to do. Instead, what may be of use in defending the special immunity thesis is that moral power I call authority.
Note:L ILLUSIONE CHE BASTI LA LEGITTIMITÀ

Yellow highlight | Page: 71

John Simmons’s
Note:AUTORE

Yellow highlight | Page: 71

certain governments have legitimacy (as I’ve defined it) but not authority.
Note:LA VISION DOMINANTE OGGI

Yellow highlight | Page: 71

Michael Huemer similarly concludes, “Skepticism about political obligation [i.e., authority] is probably the dominant view” in philosophy now.
Note:MH

Yellow highlight | Page: 71

Leslie Green says in his Stanford Encyclopedia
Note:ALTRO AUTORE

Yellow highlight | Page: 72

Ned Dobos
Note:ALTRO AUTORE

Yellow highlight | Page: 72

To review this literature would take an entire book.
Note:ORMAI LA LETTERATURA NEGAZIONISTA È STERMINATA

Yellow highlight | Page: 72

ACTUAL CONSENT THEORY
Note:Tttttttt

Yellow highlight | Page: 72

governments have authority over us because we consent to their rule.
Note:UNA TEORIA POPOLARE

Yellow highlight | Page: 72

The problem with this theory, though, is that our relationship to government does not appear to have any features that signify consent.
Note:PROBLEMA

Yellow highlight | Page: 73

I performed an act that signified my consent.
Note:RFEQUISITI DEL CONTRATTO

Yellow highlight | Page: 73

I was not forced to buy
Note:SECONDO REQUISITO

Yellow highlight | Page: 73

Active dissent would have stopped the deal.
Note:TERZO

Yellow highlight | Page: 74

HYPOTHETICAL CONSENT THEORY
Note:Ttttttttt

Yellow highlight | Page: 74

many philosophers, such as Thomas Hobbes, have proposed “hypothetical consent theories,”
Note:HOBBES

Yellow highlight | Page: 75

we generally only think hypothetical consent matters in cases when we cannot check to see whether a person actually consents.
Note:PRIMO PROBLEMA

Yellow highlight | Page: 75

hypothetical consent theories at best usually seem to show only that it would be unreasonable or irrational for you not to agree; they do not demonstrate that it is obligatory.
Note:SECONDO PROBLEMA

Yellow highlight | Page: 75

they seem to misunderstand what promises, real or hypothetical, can do.
Note:TERZ PROBLEMA....NN POSSO COMMETTERE IL MALE IN VIRTÙ DI UNA PROMESSA...CONTRATTO IMMORALE

Yellow highlight | Page: 75

Suppose I declare, “In exchange for my parents having provided me with benefits, I promise to obey them in all things.” Now suppose my parents order me to murder some foreigners or throw their pot-smoking neighbors in the basement. Even though I did in fact promise to obey my parents, it’s clear I don’t acquire the duty to murder the foreigners or imprison the neighbors.
Note:ESEMPIO DI PROMESSA CHE SI HA IL DOVERE DI NN MANTENERE

Yellow highlight | Page: 76

FAIR PLAY THEORY
Note:TtttttttttDILEMMA DEL PRIGIOIERO....FORMA DI UTILITARISMO

Yellow highlight | Page: 76

Another major theory of authority, devised by H. L. A. Hart, holds that authority arises out of a duty of fair play:
Note:ALTRA TEORIA

Yellow highlight | Page: 76

The idea here is that when some people incur a sacrifice to public goods that benefit all, the other people who benefit have a duty to contribute
Note:DOVERE DI CONTRIBUIRE

Yellow highlight | Page: 76

Robert Nozick illustrates one with his “public address system” thought experiment. He asks you to imagine that your neighbors create a public entertainment system, with loudspeakers throughout your neighborhood. Each neighbor takes turns playing songs, reciting poetry, conducting interviews, or whatnot. You enjoy the system. One day, let’s say day 138, they come to you and say that it’s your turn
Note:PRIMO PROBLEMA DEI CONTRATTI ROVESCIATI....FARE E PRETENDERE ANZICHÈ CONTRATTARE....IL DONO X OBBLIGARE DI FATTO PRIVILEGIA IL TUO CONTRATTO PRFERITO SUL MIO...È UNA VESSAZIONE

Yellow highlight | Page: 77

the reason for this judgment seems to be that you had no good way of avoiding receiving the benefits—you couldn’t opt out without great expense
Note:RISPONDERAI CHE NN INTENDI CONTRACCAMBIARE

Yellow highlight | Page: 78

SUMMARY
Note:ttttttttt

Yellow highlight | Page: 78

The belief that governments enjoy authority is widespread; even people living under illiberal and highly corrupt regimes tend to think their governments are legitimate and authoritative.
Note:NONOSTANTE I FALLIMENTI TEORICI

Yellow highlight | Page: 78

over the past twenty-five hundred years, a large number of highly qualified people have spent a large amount of effort trying but failing to identify that property.
Note:COSA RENDE AUTOREVOLE UN GOVERNO?

Yellow highlight | Page: 78

Empirical work generally finds we have a psychological bias to ascribe authority to others, even in cases where there clearly isn’t any.
Note:VOGLIA DI UBBIDIRE

Yellow highlight | Page: 79

AUTHORITY ISN’T ALL OR NOTHING
Note:Tttttttttt

Yellow highlight | Page: 79

A government can have authority over some issues without having complete authority over everything.
Note:QUELLO CHE SFUGGE

Yellow highlight | Page: 81

Authority in one does not imply authority in another.
Note:LIMTI

Yellow highlight | Page: 81

Anyone who wants to defend the special immunity thesis on the basis of government authority has a serious burden. It won’t be enough to justify a general kind of government authority.
Note:IL COMPITO DEL DOPIO STANDRD

Yellow highlight | Page: 83

THE COMPETENCE PRINCIPLE AS AN OBJECTION TO AUTHORITY
Note:Ttttttttttt

Yellow highlight | Page: 83

one of the arguments for the special immunity thesis holds that governments enjoy special immunity because they have legitimacy and authority.16 So far we’ve seen that legitimacy is irrelevant. What matters is whether governments have authority. Yet we’ve seen that even with this clarification, the assertion faces some big challenges. First, it’s unclear that any governments have any authority, period.
Note:RIASSUNTO

Yellow highlight | Page: 83

Second, even if governments have some general authority—for example, the authority to make you pay taxes—a person who tries to ground the special immunity thesis on authority would need to show that governments specifically have the authority to commit severe injustices or impose serious harms.
Note:Ccccccccc

Yellow highlight | Page: 84

Suppose six criminal defendants are about to stand trial for first-degree murder. If they are found guilty, they will face many years or even life in prison,
Note:ESEMPIO

Yellow highlight | Page: 84

The first jury is ignorant.
Note:Ccccccccc

Yellow highlight | Page: 84

The second jury is irrational.
Note:Cccccccc

Yellow highlight | Page: 84

The third jury is impaired.
Note:Cccccccccc

Yellow highlight | Page: 84

The fourth jury is reckless.
Note:Ccccccccc

Yellow highlight | Page: 85

The fifth jury is prejudiced.
Note:Ccccccccc

Yellow highlight | Page: 85

The sixth jury is corrupt.
Note:Cccccccccc

Yellow highlight | Page: 85

Ask yourself: If we knew that the juries made their decisions that way, would we be obligated to obey them? (Would
Note:Cccccccc

Yellow highlight | Page: 86

juries have strong duties toward defendants or to the rest of us on whose behalf they act, and also that the jury’s legitimacy and authority depends on its discharging these duties.
Note:IPOTESI

Yellow highlight | Page: 86

The four features above are grounds for accepting what I call the competence principle:
Note:IL NOSTRO DIRITTO ALLA COMPETENZA DI CHI CI GOVERNA

Yellow highlight | Page: 86

The competence principle appears to have a broad scope of application. There is little reason to think it applies only to juries. If a police officer, judge, politician, bureaucracy, or legislative body makes capricious, reckless, irrational, or malicious decisions, other people generally are stuck bearing high costs.
Note:IL PRINCIPIO CHE DÀ AUTORITÀ

Yellow highlight | Page: 88

The competence principle is, in itself, not a full theory of authority or legitimacy. Rather, as I’m arguing, it’s a principle that should be part of a full theory, whatever the best theory of authority or legitimacy may be.
Note:EPISTEMOCRAZIA

Yellow highlight | Page: 88

The competence principle is a disqualifier. It does not justify imbuing anyone with power. It does not justify holding that any governments (or their agents) are authoritative or legitimate. Rather, it maintains that certain people, bodies, actions, or decisions lack authority and
Note:DISQUALIFER

Yellow highlight | Page: 90

In each of these cases, it’s reasonable for Ann to believe not merely that what the wrongdoers are doing is unjust but that they are also acting incompetently or in bad faith.
Note:TORNIAMO A CASI DELL ANN DEL CAPITOLO PRECEDENTE

Yellow highlight | Page: 91

DOES THIS TRIVIALIZE THE MORAL PARITY THESIS?
Note:Tttttttttt

Yellow highlight | Page: 91

First, even if we grant that governments may legitimately do whatever they please, strictly speaking this leaves open what we may do in response.
Note:PRIMO PROB DELLA LEGITTIMITÀ

Yellow highlight | Page: 91

Second, if we take seriously the past twenty-five hundred years of work on government authority, it’s reasonable to think that no governments have authority in general.
Note:L AUTORITÀ È PIÙ DIFFOCILE DA RICONOSCERE

Yellow highlight | Page: 91

Third, even if we ignore that and presume charitably that governments have some general kind of authority, in order to defend the special Immunity thesis, one would need to show specifically that governments have the authority to commit severe injustices
Note:AUTORITÀ LIMITATA

Yellow highlight | Page: 91

Fourth, the competence principle gives us reason to think many government injustices lack authority. At most, governments could be authoritative in committing a severe injustice only if they somehow decided to commit that injustice competently and in good faith.
IL LIMITE DELLA COMPEYENZA