It is easy enough to point out instances of clear illegitimacy [the slave South vis-a-vis African-Americans, apartheid South Africa, Nazi Germany, Stalinist USSR], but the question of the line of demarcation between a legitimate and illegitimate government is heavily debated.
I think a good case can be made that every one of these "illegitimate governments" was perfectly legit when they came to power. Terming them "illegit" implies the governments themselves were somehow unwanted or came to power "unfairly." No doubt there were people then who opposed the governments' practices or even the governments themselves, but these governments, from what I know, came to power through legitimate means (much like the Ontario Conservatives I must put up with nowadays who came to power by taking advantage of vote splitting).
Leo also said:
My point was that democrats recognize, as a matter of principle, that the line exists; anarchists, also as a matter of principle, do not recognize it. For them, the state is always illegitimate, democratic or not.
My point is that that "line's" existence is purely subjective. Even presupposing its existence doesn't mean that it can't "move." It depends a lot on popular sentiment, popular ideology, popular power (as well as the reciprocal elite versions of these last and what the elite can do about that line).
Leo said:
The democratic theory of civil disobedience allows one to break a specific law, while still recognizing the legitimacy of majority rule, and of a state based on majority rule and the consent of the governed.
You speak of a theory. Is there a book or website that talks a bit more in depth on this theory; I don't want to seem to badger you TOO much. Also, a majority rule can still run roughshod over anyone else, constitutionally or not, with the consent (or ignorance) of the governed.
Leo said:
The right to revolution is a right unlike the ordinary species of rights.
Once again, you posit the "right" to revolution as a "right," something given by someone else. I can't imagine any polity in its right political mind explicitly or implicitly allowing this "right" to even exist. The closest I can come to this sort of idea being floated was in Hannah Arendt's On Revolution in which she mentioned that Jefferson, AFTER his stint in power, felt it might not be a bad idea to include something akin to this "right" following the logic that future generations would have to make anew the compact his generation made.
Leo said:
It is more of a justificatory concept for a certain species of political action than it is a legally enforceable claim on the government.
Yep, I agree with this.
Leo said:
The combination of majority rule and democratic rights is not a recipe for radical democratization. But it is not meant to be. It is a concept for understanding one part of what a democratic government might be, one set of the tensions it embodies. Radical democracy builds on it, but it can not, IMHO, transcend it.
Exactly so. It provides a framework for future work and activism. But only if the present polity wants to go along with creating a radical democracy.
I guess ultimately my point is that, from what little I have read, the anarchists recognize the limits and potential for evil of authority and hierarchy of any kind. They just are suspicious of putting their trust in what has often culminated in radical evil (especially in the twentieth century).
OK you anarchists out there! Back me up or tear me a new asshole!
Todd !{)>