In the mind of the middle of the bell curve, the state has legitimacy in the exercise of its authority, to a fair degree. This perceived legitimacy arises from the group: - the perceived consent of the group/ majority - the input/vote by the "governed" or "controlled" The state loses legitimacy due to - exercise of power beyond moral foundation - abuse of power by officers of the authority - duopoly: two parties both funded by the same oligarchs The legitimacy of any social order/ system arises from the shared, implied / tacit and or explicit, consent of the "governed". Consent can be: - implicit/ tacit - the people don't protest / object - the people vote at elections, and the rest is taken as a "mandate" for the winning party - explicit vote on every issue - like Switzerland - direct democracy style Possible foundations / principles / thought hooks: - delegated power and authority, by people, to an external authority - duration of delegation of any authority (duration of a parliament until the next election, vs duration as voted on by the people) - every activity is lawful except that a supermajority votes against it - every activity on the commons is unlawful except that a law voted by a supermajority allows it - When must a majority be merely a majority (50%+), - when must it be a supermajority (50%+ across all sub groups, or e.g. 60% or 75% across all voters)? Divisions of power and authority: - individual - family, small group - large group, corporation, state - geographic vs intention/ agreement to group - home level, street level, suburb, city, state, nation No authority except by consent of he who shall be imposed upon. Any change will require a concensus - speak your hierarchy of principles in a way Joe Sixpack can hear you. Choose a grand goal, but carefully consider the steps between now, and the end goal, and how to obtain agreement or mutual consent in conversation with Joe to a ladder of principles which ultimately achieves desired end goal.