Still reading over those files, but I had a realization that I feel is
relevant and fundamental.

I noticed that the Nepalese Constitution spent a great deal of time
trying to hammer out 'proof' of 'legitimacy.'  It occurred to me that
this was essentially an effort to ensure the resulting government can
'legitimately' claim that all its citizens have signed a 'social
contract.'

Rousseau, of course, argued that all citizens of a nation have
[i]implied[/i] consent to be governed, that they have 'indirectly'
signed a 'social contract.'

Hume, in his brilliance, had a simple rebuttal: "I ain't signed shit."

When police officers tell citizens that they do not have a particular
right, they do so by (whether they realize it or not) appealing to the
social contract.

The United States Government and Mubarak were both pushing for
constitutional /amendments/ that would allow for a transition to
democracy that maintained the implicit 'social contract' that was set
up when the last Egyptian Constitution was formed.  Much of the
Nepalese work was involved in justifying this, in getting around
Hume's objection (which, much like his 'problem of causation',
'problem of induction', and the 'problem of other minds', is genuinely
impossible to overcome).

I believe the Egyptian Constitution should be the first in history to
ACKNOWLEDGE Hume's objection - and I think I know how they could pull
it off.  The idea would likely need some refinement, as I am a white
american male with little understanding of today's Egyptian society
and only limited understanding of Islamic beliefs and cultures.  So
here goes:

Let me begin by defining the term 'Legitimate Authority.'  Whatever
definition you used to associate with it, for the purposes of this
text I will use the expression to describe "Any person, group, or
entity to which an individual has a Moral Obligation to Obey.'

Moral Obligation = Categorical Imperative; Hume's 'is/ought gap'
wholly undermines the idea of Moral Obligations (I can elaborate if
you like), but that's not really important.  What is important is that
in Islamic Cultures, the following holds: "There is no God but Allah"

Which is to say, there's no such thing as an (earthly) Legitimate
Authority.  Not governments, not Mullahs, not Ayatollahs, not Global
Superpowers.  There is no individual or institution to which ANY
Egyptian has a 'Moral Obligation' to Obey.  When The US and Mubarak
were attempting to maintain the previous Constitution, they were
trying to preserve the myth that Egyptian citizens DO have an
'obligation to obey', the myth that there is such a thing as a
'Legitimate Authority' on earth.

So where does this leave us?  Anarchy?  Well, yes and no.  The reality
is that we all live in Anarchy - but that some Anarchys are more
effective, stable and sustainable than others.  The Egyptian
Constitution should be an effort to craft a civilization that is
effective, stable and sustainable - but does not regard the 'public
institutions' as /having divine authority/.

So let's define a /new/ term, DISTINCT from the concept of 'Legitimate
Authority' - 'legitimate government.'  A government is not made
legitimate through a 'social contract', explicit or implicit.  This is
the myth the Egyptians have finally killed, if their philosophers take
the time to realize it.  A government is legitimate insofar as it is
an active participant in an effective, stable, and sustainable
society.  So the question to ask, when drafting the constitution, is
what 'rights' the PEOPLE wish to grant to their government.

First and foremost must be the right to speech/assembly (they're
distinct, but not).  It must be explicitly forbidden for a government
to claim the right to oppress speech and assembly.  To claim Authority
to deny people the right to speak their minds and to assemble in
public places is to claim Divinity.  And there is no God but Allah.

QED: Secularism, Democracy, and Islam are compatible; and, in fact,
for any government to claim to be 'compatible' with Islam, it must NOT
claim to have Legitimate Authority.

Consequently, when the US Gov't was formed, the idea that all the
citizens had tacitly signed a social contract making the government a
Legitimate Authority was NOT popular.  The US was founded by people
who were rejecting the Legitimate Authority of their previous rulers.
It wasn't really until the Civil War that this question arose - for
the Northern States to insist that the Southern States could not
secede required that they make the case that they had Legitimate
Authority over the South, and that the South had a moral obligation to
remain part of the nation.  The strength of the US Federal government
largely stems from this - and the 'war on drugs' is but one symptom of
the error.  (I'm a northerner, grew up with a northern education, and
am simply very analytical - not a confederate)


Are you familiar with the game 'nomic'?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nomic
http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/writing/nomic.htm#initial%20set

If you're familiar, I'd like to delve into a conversation on that
topic at some point, if you have the time.

-David