The relevant part of the OP is this:

2. Factual legitimacy is in part a function of how much these institutions avoid producing outcomes that are factually 'intolerable' (and thus not tolerated) for this population.

What does 'factually' intolerable mean? It means that people don't tolerate it.

How do people demonstrate that they don't tolerate something?

How do people demonstrate that they don't tolerate something? — csalisbury

Depends. Intolerance that actually results in a policy shift carries a threat of social breakdown (or as in the case of the Civil Rights Movement endangers national security).

I understand that you're aiming at saying that slaves can't march in protest. That's true. Neither can sexually/physically abused children, 19th Century American women who were treated like whores because they'd been left by their husbands, Lakota children who were taken from their parents to be raised white... and on .. and on... and on...

Why the fixation on slaves? There's probably a kid in your neighborhood who's being abused right now. Think about it... like right now. And no one is coming to help. Why? Because we're tolerating it.

I understand that you're aiming at saying that slaves can't march in protest. That's true. Neither can sexually/physically abused children, 19th Century American women who were treated like whores because they'd been left by their husbands, Lakota children who were taken from their parents to be raised white... and on .. and on... and on...

Exactly

But let's turn aside from the victim for just a second and look at you. You continue to tolerate victimization in your world along with just about everybody else.

Why is that?

bc i like it.

Look, I know you think you have a promising new line - & its legit, in its own right - it just has no bearing on the op.

bc i like it. — csalisbury

For all practical purposes, yes. What you think about as you march around with your sign... doesn't really make any difference.

At all.

Yeah, all I'm saying is the op is a bad,bunk argument for conservatism. If you're truly interested in discussing my own failings as an avowed progressive - which are legion - pm me. They're not relevant to this thread, but I'm willing to discuss them, if you really care.

I think the point being made by your opponents in this thread is that because in any society there are people whose tolerance or intolerance doesn't matter by virtue of their defenselessness, the legitimacy spoken of in the OP is false legitimacy. Furthermore, the fact that human society is generally afflicted with injustice (and I would add corruption), the endurance of institutions may (and possibly inevitably) testifies to the dominance of the unjust and the corrupt.

Your opponents don't explain whether this translates to an obligation to be ready for change or to actively seek it.

My own view is that government exists not only because people tolerate it, but because it's part of who we are, and we embrace it as a path to the manifestation of our greatest potential. The fact that we err and fail doesn't change that. I think a society needs people who are risk averse. We need people who fear change because change can be catastrophic. But not everybody is conservative. Sometimes change is the only choice.

I hope you drop by the forum and share your thoughts. Otherwise... vaya con dios.

The replies to this post are hilarious. It proves the crux of the paper: "the weakness of human reason"

Here is the full paper by the way.

Where do you think we're going wrong?

I find it hilarious that people in this thread smugly believe that slavery is a defeater of the argument in question. Do you think Marquez, a trained philosopher, is going to reply, "Aw, shucks, you got me!" Or: "You're right, slavery is totally a basic institution I would defend." The uncharitable gall it takes to assume such things is astounding.

Secondly, defending slavery doesn't follow from his argument, for it isn't clear that it meets, or would meet on Marquez's grounds, the definitions of "basic" and "institution." A basic institution is not meant to refer to simply anything people have done for a certain amount of time. People have murdered, tortured, enslaved, etc other people from time immemorial, but to call these "basic institutions" is absurd and could only be done facetiously.

Am I honestly the only one who looked up the actual paper and read a reasonable amount of it?

The author explicitly deals with "slavery" and "other large violations of basic human rights, famine." Page 11 for the lazy mongols, which is probably all of you that replied.

But this is simply missing the crux. As the paper's title suggests, an epistemic argument for conservatism. The crux of the paper is that conservatism is a viable (or even sound) strategy to deal with "the weakness of human reason" in the "complexity of the social world."

Ironically enough, unenlightened (and some others) is (are) perfect example(s) to prove the crux of the paper. You lot even struggle with some basic economics. Thank god none of you hold any position of power, and probably never will.

I find it hilarious that people in this thread smugly believe that slavery is a defeater of the argument in question. Do you think Marquez, a trained philosopher, is going to reply, "Aw, shucks, you got me!" Or: "You're right, slavery is totally a basic institution I would defend." The uncharitable gall it takes to assume such things is astounding.

Could there be a more naked example of appeal to authority than this?

Secondly, defending slavery doesn't follow from his argument, for it isn't clear that it meets, or would meet on Marquez's grounds, the definitions of "basic" and "institution." A basic institution is not meant to refer to simply anything people have done for a certain amount of time. People have murdered, tortured, enslaved, etc other people from time immemorial, but to call these "basic institutions" is absurd and could only be done facetiously.

Slavery in and of itself is not an institution, sure, but specific instances of it, like the american plantation system, are. If you don't think the american plantation system was an institution, then we have very different understandings of what the term means.

"Institutionalized slavery" means there are laws governing it or it's recognized. But slavery varies. Sometimes it's social welfare. Sometimes slaves are war trophies. Need to reference a particular case of it (un and andrew).

Could there be a more naked example of appeal to authority than this? — csalisbury

Utter nonsense. I was pointing out your unwarranted disposal of the principle of charity.

Slavery in and of itself is not an institution — csalisbury

Good, so we're done here.

Am I honestly the only one who looked up the actual paper and read a reasonable amount of it? — Emptyheady

Utter nonsense. I was pointing out your unwarranted disposal of the principle of charity. — Terrapin

Look you guys, the OP presented an argument. In posting an argument, one invites others to address the argument on its own merits. That's what people did.

Good, so we're done here. — Thorongil

Are you just being sulky again or do you sincerely not understand? (Let me charitable and assume you're just being sulky)

Are you just being sulky again or do you sincerely not understand? (Let me charitable and assume you're just being sulky) — csalisbury

I understand that you conceded to me my point. Perhaps you are a sore loser, though.

No, but really, are you being sulky? I want to give you last one chance to show you're not being serious, before explaining how bad your line of thought is.

Is slavery a basic institution? Yes or no. I answer no. You have answered no. We are now in agreement on the point of dispute.

Did slavery arise and was it maintained by a basic institution? Sure, but that was not the point of dispute and it doesn't make the basic institution from which it arose bad or evil, i.e. we can ask if a plantation system in and of itself is evil or requires slavery, and the answer is no.

But please, go ahead and drop those logic bombs you're apparently sitting on.

Ok, I think you're still confused about institutions. Slavery in the abstract is not a basic institution. The slave system in the american south was a basic institution.

Aaaand now you contradict yourself.

How?

Have you actually read the paper kid?

No, did you understand my post?

No — csalisbury

Then any criticism regarding the author can be dismissed.

I strongly advise you to read the substance -- and attempt to understand it -- before you criticise it.

Again, the op presented an argument. The argument in the op was what people were criticizing, because that's how threads that present an argument in the OP work. I haven't criticized the author of the article from which the argument in the op was drawn anywhere, so I'm not sure what you're referring to.

csalisbury - back to ranting against conservatism! :-!

1. The endurance of basic institutions* is in part a function of their 'factual' legitimacy, i.e., their actual actual acceptance by the population they regulate (in other words, endurance and factual legitimacy are correlated).
2. Factual legitimacy is in part a function of how much these institutions avoid producing outcomes that are factually 'intolerable' (and thus not tolerated) for this population.
3. There is some connection between what the people subject to these institutions consider normatively intolerable and what is actually normatively intolerable (i. e., factual and normative legitimacy are correlated, even if normatively intolerable outcomes are not always widely recognized).
4. Therefore, actual endurance is evidence that institutions have avoided producing normatively intolerable outcomes in varied circumstances in the past.
5. The evidence that long-lasting institutions have avoided producing normatively intolerable outcomes in many kinds of unknown past circumstances is also evidence that they may avoid producing such outcomes in unknown future circumstances.
(X. Marquez, 2015, An Epistemic Argument for Conservativism) — Kazuma

I agree with the argument but I don't like the way it is made. It's too much anti-reason, and skeptical of reason. I prefer rational conservatism - as per the distinction made here.

It's as anti-reason as "If it ain't broke don't fix it."

An opposing response is that human society is often in a state of moral failure without strictly being broken.

The argument can be stated roughly as follows:
1. The endurance of basic institutions is in part a function of their ‘factual’ legitimacy, i.e., their actual acceptance by the population they regulate (in other words, endurance and factual legitimacy are correlated). — The actual paper wot I have looked at an all

If the population regulated is helpless to reject the basic institution, as is nearly always the case, then their 'acceptance' as evidenced by the endurance of said institution has no value and no legitimacy, because everybody necessarily 'accepts' what they can do nothing about, however repugnant and illegitimate it is.

It is a complete travesty of an argument from the first premise.