[merpnderp]

Taxation in a democracy is inherently legitimate. And the reasoning behind it is explained clearly in Rousseau's Social Contract, although the idea goes back centuries. Simply stated, if you decide to continue living in a society, then you implicitly agree to abide by its rules. In most countries, the agreement means paying taxes set by elected representatives.

[bmelton]

Rousseau's social contract, while a fine piece of work, would almost certainly advocate a monarchy for a state the size of America. Its use here seems to be an appeal to authority, which seems odd as there are no mentions to it anywhere within our governing documents, upon which a less spurious legitimacy is bestowed.

Beyond that, categorizing anything as "inherently legitimate" is fraught with peril. One could perhaps surmise that all things are legitimate within a democracy, but so long as the favors of the majority come at the expense of the minority, that claim is disputable.

Beyond that, I don't really know that Rousseau's contract would invalidate a North Korean government as it exists, and North Korean citizenship precludes the option of defection.

The biggest flaw I see with the assertion that "if you want to live here, you agree to pay taxes" is that there's no opt-out policy in America as it is. If you object to the taxation, and wish to opt out, your only path is expatriation, with its associated expatriation taxes.

[merpnderp]

I'd say that the tautology of what the system agrees is legitimate is what is legitimate (no less useful than gravity pulls things together because it pulls things together). Laws promoting racism were broken in the US, and the law-breakers were quickly recognized as legitimate. Perhaps some types of tax dodgers might be considered legitimate. The beauty of a democracy is that if you can convince enough people that something should be legitimate/illegitimate, they can make it so.

And yes "inherently legitimate" was a poor phrase to choose.

And I believe many founders leaned heavily on Rousseau's work. Hamilton and Madison particularly in the Federalist Papers.

[bmelton]

> I'd say that the tautology of what the system agrees is legitimate is what is legitimate

And which is inherently fallacious, even going against Rousseau. Slavery as an institution was systemically agreed upon by the institution. There is no inherent legitimacy in violating the liberties of others, and while I agree that any such comparison is flawed, agreeing on slavery as an institution is no more or less legitimate due to populist demand than the insistence of taking some people's money and giving it to others.

Are there benefits? Undoubtedly; but even something mathematically proven as "good" (as if we could do such a thing) is not necessarily legitimate, however well founded the idea or the intent. That said, this is all philosophical, to be sure, but since we're waxing, may as well get fully waxed. (Don't ask me what that means, cause I have no idea.)

> And I believe many founders leaned heavily on Rousseau's work

No argument there.

[geggam]

The US is a Republic not a Democracy.

[the_why_of_y]

The constitution says the US is both a Republic and a Democracy.

[geggam]

Declaration of Independence and our constitution do not even mentioned the word "democracy".

[the_why_of_y]

Let's see... neither the Constitution nor the Declaration of Independence explicitly use the word "republic" for the United States as a whole, so you should perhaps reconsider that argument.

Constitution, Article 1, Section 2, and Section 3, in their first paragraphs clearly define the legislative branch as a representative democracy.

[merpnderp]

The US Republic is a type of Democracy, but does not have direct democracy in that representatives are elected to represent the public.