political obligation -> need consent

to have genuine authority -> state need to be legitimate (not just have power)

DOES LEGITIMACY REQUIRE POPULAR APPROVAL?

- argument: people are likely to approve if:

1) state provides benefits (hobbes)

2) citizens give their consent (locke)

- SO maybe the basis of legitimacy is popular approval?

PLATO'S OBJECTION:

- legitimacy based on theoretical authority (people w expertise who can provide knowledge for example, viewing an engineer as an authority when building a bridge bc trust their skills + expertise)

- democracy = freedom to choose what citizens want for themselves

- citizens = irrational desires + emotions + prejudices 

- SO won't vote for what's best for the state but rather what is best for THEM

- SO freedom is harmful

- beast analogy: citizens = beast / rulers = tamers -> rulers will try to accommodate citizens to keep them happy -> so also won't be doing what's best for the state

- what citizens WANT isn't necessarily what is GOOD :( -> won't contribute to the common good, which plato believes is the purpose of the state

OBJECTIONS TO PLATO:

- hume: what people want + what is good = same thing ---> PLATO: people are confused about what they want

- ignores importance of freedom + equality > important -> shouldn't force people to obey ---> undermines human moral judgements -> perhaps humans are able to decide what is good for the state whilst also accommodating their own needs -> perhaps they aren't as selfish as plato implies

- even theoretical authorities (experts) mess up too -> are human -> driven by irrational emotions + desires + prejudices

- churchill: democracy is the worst form of government, except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time  -> democracy = best option -> other forms of gov = prone to corruption e.g. stalinist russia. -> easy to point out the flaws in democracy, but not easy to suggest a more effective option THUS pointless argument