Isn't legitimacy only a thing if there is already an established (legal) order? Or what do you take the word to mean? — ChatteringMonkey

take it as "logical or acceptable in principle".

take it as "logical or acceptable in principle". — Copernicus

Isn't this far too generic? As my favorite euphemism I've read on this site goes "there are far too many tails pinned on that donkey for it to have any sort of clear, singular (rather, usable and feasible) meaning."

One man's principle is generally defined on his upbringing and life experience or otherwise cultural and societal norms. The worst things you could imagine are "acceptable in principle" depending on who you're asking or for example if one is fighting a war.

If something is "logical or acceptable in principle", while it does enforce logic so something utopian or otherwise silly but otherwise exclusively "acceptable" in principle, such as, all men should live in peace and not commit crimes, still seems to be far too subjective and varying to offer any sort of grounds as far as universal justifications are concerned. Doesn't it?

Edit: I'll respond to your request to list any flaws I may or may not find in your OP shortly. I'm not intimately familiar with "minarchism" so wish to read up on it a bit more before providing a response.

I wonder if our fascination with questions that don't matter has ever been given serious study. But now I think of it, that may not matter either.

I wonder if our fascination with questions that don't matter has ever been given serious study. But now I think of it, that may not matter either. — Ciceronianus

One man's trash is another man's treasure.

Not all that glitters is gold.

A drop of wine in a vat of sewage is still sewage; a drop of sewage in a vat of wine is now a vat of sewage.

Ignorance is bliss, delusion is honey; Together, man thinks himself a god, knowing all there is to know, thus alleviating his existential fears of mortality and shame, yet all while remaining a simple child.

Perhaps. But one should ask oneself, sometimes at least, what is achieved. Even if we merely play games, then at least there's a winner and loser.

what is achieved. — Ciceronianus

We are blind in this world. We have senses, such as they are. But they are nothing suitable to understand the vastness of the universe. We poke and prod into the abyss, finding so-called "answers", at least things that satisfy our most primal senses, food, comfort, safety, entertainment, things a chipmunk also seeks and finds to satisfaction. But what of it?

Even if we merely play games, then at least there's a winner and loser. — Ciceronianus

The things people living an unexamined life consider the most important are actually the silliest and trivial of games, the least important of anything a man can do or ever hope to accomplish. In these falsehoods, so-called winners "lose" all opportunity of bettering one's self and learning from others who managed to make it as far as they have, while so-called losers "win" the unquenchable fire of a forced life of eternal betterment. Upon realizing such, we realize such childish mindsets produce no winners, but simple degrees of self-denial in all who embrace them.

Can you not see that? What madness is this?

I wonder if our fascination with questions that don't matter has ever been given serious study. But now I think of it, that may not matter either. — Ciceronianus

Principles are more important than practicality. It sets the standard for our actions.

When you break the principles, be it secular or religious, you get an estimation of how deviant your actions have become. You feel bad when you go so far. Even though you're not following the principles line by line, it's working as a compass. But when there is no principle, you'll have no direction. You'll have no restraint. You'll have nothing to shape your life. Be it personal moral codes or societal. Much like law and order.

Isn't this far too generic? — Outlander

You're right, principles can have subjective value. But doctrines are universally codified. You can choose to follow them or make something out of it (upon which it becomes a new doctrine).

Such as communism → socialism, nihilism → absurdism, etc.

For the sake of fairness, I would like to add a few authors that you did not mention:

1. Philosophers and their ideas: The works of philosophers form the intellectual foundation, but they may be disconnected from the real needs of society.

2. External trends: Fashionable social formations influence constitutions, but they risk ignoring local characteristics.

3. Direct foreign intervention: Constitutions created under the pressure of external forces often serve the interests of foreigners rather than the people.

4. Historical traditions and cultural norms: Constitutions may rely on established traditions, but this can hinder reforms and innovations by perpetuating outdated structures.

we're discussing the rightful authorship from idealistic/principial grounds. The components of the constitution is not in question here.

What was the idea? You wrote a post in the spirit of the Age of Enlightenment, with elements of sentimentalism and romanticism (like Rousseau or Locke). But we're in the 21st century, the era of postpositivism, relativism, post-structuralism, and much more.

If your question is about a standard (like the standards at the Paris Chamber of Weights and Measures), that's one thing. But if we're talking about something practically useful and modern, that's something else entirely.

I used them as a reference. Do you have any answer to the initial question?

I don't have an answer to your question with these initial data.
But I have another answer, in the spirit of processual ontology with elements of the Apokrisis approach, proposed in another thread, as well as a post-positivist approach.

In short, the idea is that there is no single author or factor that influences a constitution to a sufficient degree to merit the title of its author. A constitution is the result of the consensus of a very large number of participants. A constitution is often rewritten and supplemented, depending on the circumstances. A constitution is not the source of everything—it is merely a document that takes into account the interests of all its authors, including the invisible ones. And, most importantly, a constitution is not "given"; a constitution is not a substance or a matter. A constitution is an ongoing process. A very complex process determined by many factors (even the invention of AI or cryptocurrency can influence a constitution). If a constitution turns into a dead set of dogmas enshrined in the 18th century, its value is close to zero. A constitution must be constantly applicable.

I'd also like to point out that a constitution isn't exactly an ancient invention. The earliest known constitution in the modern sense is the US Constitution, adopted in 1787. Although similar documents existed before that (for example, the Magna Carta of 1215 in England), they weren't constitutions in the true sense, as they didn't establish a comprehensive system of government. So, that's 238 years. States, in the sense of organized political structures with centralized power, have existed for approximately 5,500 years. Clearly, a constitution isn't necessary for a state to exist. By this, I'd like to suggest that tomorrow, one might not be necessary.

Why not support my argument of a minarchist state with no constitution, then?

I don't like the idea of ​​a state without a constitution.

You couldn't provide a viable solution either.

Must I have?

Was expected.

If the Constitution is changed, or abolished, it will have no more to do with whether it's "legitimate" than when it was created. Systems of law exist regardless of morality or principles. Laws apply whether they're good or bad.

who gets to write it?

I don't like the idea of ​​a state without a constitution. — Astorre

Why do we need a state?

Why do we need a state? — Copernicus

Who is this "we" you speak of?
"We" need a state because if it is not our state, then it is anybody's state and may become their state.


Any territory (a piece of land) is in some state or other. It may be a state of wilderness, or a state of anarchy, a state of war, a state of transition, a state of tribal occupation, or even a state of the union.

So to answer your original question; The Constitution was written by a bunch of invading and marauding white men in an attempt to lend a veneer of moral legitimacy to their theft of the entire continent from the original inhabitants and the systematic persecution and slaughter of the same.

Jolly good luck with ending that immoral hegemony, but I won't be holding my breath. (I think this makes me officially an 'enemy of the people', where 'we' is 'the people' of the constitution.)

"We" need a state because if it is not our state, then it is anybody's state and may become their state. — unenlightened

Why do we need a community?

Why do we need a community? — Copernicus

I don't; you don't; but we do. As soon as you ask a question, you are in a relationship that constitutes a community. And you do keep asking questions, like a dependent child - even your rhetorical questions illustrate your dependency; stop waiting for responses to your silliness, and get on with something of your own, if you imagine you have anything at all of your own.

I've been involved in the set up of a couple of democratically constituted organisations, and there is always an awkward bit at the start, as sort of pre-creational, pre-symmetry breaking standing around and talking bit, where someone says, "OK, let's say this is how it's going to work" and makes a suggestion, writes it down, and then if a few people assent to it, a constitution is born. Then everyone can relax, the constitution gains a legitimacy separate from its author (who is then bound by it) and the whole thing starts off. The longer it lasts without challenge, and the more people consent to it, the more legitimacy it has. The original author doesn't need to possess any intrinsic legitimacy that the constitution must inherit.