Clearly not. Even accepting Kip’s paraphrase how could one possibly hold that the constitution minimized government power and maximized individual rights?

I’ve addressed Barnett’s arguments here. I have not read RTLC but neither have I seen any evidence from discussion of it that Barnett has added anything substantial to his earlier arguments.

Is slavery legitimate if 95% of people think it is?

Since the argument presented was so immoral and ridiculous, I didn’t feel the need to write a long entry.

Earlier I asked “I want to be perfectly clear on this. When NT! folks ask where the US government draws its legitimacy, do you understand that they are asking about moral legitimacy? If so, do you believe that your position on positive legitimacy even addresses the issue that the question is about?”

Still thinking on it?

More recently:

“I’m not saying that they’re not rational.”

If you aren’t denying that the anarchist arguments of Friedman, Rothbard, Spooner, etc. are rational reasons to question the legitimacy of the government, how can you claim that the government put forth in the constitution meets both of Barnett’s criteria?

“Exactly. The two conditions you’ve laid out don’t describe anything resembling a government.”

So exactly what? Are you saying that all governments necessarily will behave hypocritically and violate property rights? Your view of governments is more pessismistic than mine!

I’m not saying that they’re not rational. I’m saying that no matter how rational, they won’t submit to any government but anarchy. It’s like saying that peanuts, with all the protein, are good for humans. But these folks are allergic.

Believe it or not, no. Offhand, any government is morally legitimate that (1) does not violate anyone’s property rights and (2) has not and does not engage in any activity that it simultaneously forbids others to do.

Exactly. The two conditions you’ve laid out don’t describe anything resembling a government. That’s like saying you’re a fan of any circle with four sides.

I want to be perfectly clear on this. When NT! folks ask where the US government draws its legitimacy, do you understand that they are asking about moral legitimacy? If so, do you believe that your position on positive legitimacy even addresses the issue that the question is about?

Your attempt at resolving the contradiction I pointed out doesn’t even address it. Either a majority is a sufficient condition for legitimacy or it isn’t. Take your pick, but introducing a continuum problem is probably not the way to resolving the inconsistency.

“To that I ask, would the No Treason! folks agree to the government put forth in our Constitution, which meets the two criteria Barnett suggests?”

The subordinate clause here sneaks an assertion into the question. Are you willing to claim that e.g. David Friedman’s, L. Spooner’s, M. Rothbard’s, etc. arguments are not rational reasons to question the legitimacy of the government?

“You’re an anarchist, though, which means that you see *no* government as morally legitimate.”

Believe it or not, no. Offhand, any government is morally legitimate that (1) does not violate anyone’s property rights and (2) has not and does not engage in any activity that it simultaneously forbids others to do.

:-)

To that I ask, would the No Treason! folks agree to the government put forth in our Constitution, which meets the two criteria Barnett suggests?

Also, does Barnett cover that in his book, “Restoring the Lost Constitution”? That’s on my reading list for July…

Your definition is flawed — and dangerous. What is “an overwhelming majority” and what becomes of those not part of it?

Randy Barnett’s definition is better, though I am paraphrasing: A legitimate government is one for which a person subject to it has no rational basis to question its legitimacy — which can only be the case when government powers are minimized and individual rights are maximized.