The «legitimacy» congregates the whole of the principles that consider «right» any action, any behavior, any policy... .

In the positive Right is «legitimate» what is in according with the interests of those who benefit of it more than the others – and those are who predominate in that society. They are who have the economic power.

The economy is the way to get money.

Money always emerges when humans and other beings need to (ex)change anything in a more complex level of the consideration, giving what they do not need anymore and getting from the others what they need in a present time, being impossible, then, to evaluate correctly the two distinct interests concerning two diverging values of each good that each one possesses and want to exchange.

To get money, one needs to produce anything.

Money finally allows each one, each interest, each will, to buy, to pay, the services that each one requires/needs.

In a rational Right there are no particular interests underlying (to) the juridical considerations which will compose the principles of the Right (one calls it «jurisprudence»).

In this rational Right the principles which underlie (to) the laws were sentenced, were instituted, by the majority of the population in its whole.

What is this «majority»?

Nothing else but the major part of the citizenship (those who can take part in common deliberations and thus can vote). So: 50,01 % at least.

To something become «rational», is not enough a majority affirming it. To become rational, anything needs to be... just «rational». I mean: needs to become determined by a majority, in the whole, in the universe, of a concerning population, benefiting all members of the considered population, but a majority acting autonomously, performing with information and deciding with knowledge enough.

Then, what is necessary, to each one be enabled to participate in a majoritarian decision?

Some previous requirements:

a) To be able to think and act with/in autonomy.

Immanuel Kant had demonstrated what is the «autonomy» in the exercised thought’s process (judgment’s autonomy) and in the whole of the individual social action (will’s autonomy).

b)  To be able to think and act independently (in autonomy), or to think based in own thought, one has to have, has to clearly reveal, an exercise of thought enough: has to be able to distinguish what is right and what is wrong, according the interest of the majority and not anymore according the interest of this or that one in particular.

c) So, the population has to be educated for... (...the exercise of the true citizenship, which has, as a consequence, the social and the political participation, donein the first person, necessarily with the concerning sense of responsibility, obviously high).

In conclusion, we may consider that is not enough to have a (simple) majority.

We need to have a majority thinking, willing and acting independently (in autonomy). If not, we had then a handled majority – so, a false majority, to be truly said.

Only then one can have a majority ready to establish the principles which will regulate, will institute, the future laws of a rational Right governing a new kind of society. Only then a rational Right can be instituted and saw the light.

That kind of Right has to include the possibility of revising, as the major interest, in a given period of the history, can be not exactly the same of a future.

To be autonomous in own thought, in will and in the acting, each one has to have the ways to do that: formation, first, and information during the process of formation and after it, in order to be capable and available to perform socially and politically in an autonomous way.

That's why is essential the education of the individuals in a society.

Because of that, Plato idealized his political regime – which one the hoaxers of ideology and policy called «Republic» [but «republic» is just a neologism of the so-called French and North-American «revolutions» of 19th century and so it couldn't be a word used by a Plato living 2.500 years before; besides: the neologism republic comes directly from the Roman/Latin expression res publica, not yet used at those times of Plato, which literally means: «the public thing»; this public thing was, or meant, everything that surpassed the private domain, simply – and not a political regime! The public thing is the thing which concerns and belongs to all members of a society: the common patrimony, culturally, economically, politically... . So, the word «republic» concerns an ideological conception which is not yet available (and possible, above all). What exists, in its place, is a kind of a popular monarchy equivocally called «republic», in which the apical point of the social pyramid is occupied by a «president» instead the «king» or the «queen»; what is clearly not enough to distinguish regimes and satisfy an exigent rationality; but also a true monarchy just can take place if in that political regime each king or queen govern in fact, not necessarily in an absolute way, but doing it effectively. And what can one says about «democracy»? It was a political regime of the ancient Greeks, in which only the proprietaries, the owners, participated politically. The main difference between ancient democracy and ancient aristocracy (aris meant and yet means, in Greek, «the best»; so aristocracy was «the regime of the best», those who, having more than the others, got the conditions to participate, decide and make prevalent their intents and options) lies in the fact that a great number of owners could participate in democracy, in a historical period in which the international commerce with the Phoenicians and other sailors of the Mediterranean sea increased the social vitality of Athens and made it to become a modern cosmopolitan society; so, the democracy was the appropriated answer then given to the new social and economic needs/exigencies. Well: what exists, nowadays, is not that, but simply a political regime of representation, exercised in a partisan framing with parliamentarian fitting. Not a «democracy». So, the real democracy is actually a death with 2 thousand years...].

What a confusion inside the minds of the humans!

A figure that we can use for the specification of the legitimate legitimacy is the following:

Inside a couple's life is «legitimate» just what each one freely accepts from the other; what is imposed, is dictatorial, violent, against the basic principles of a healthy rationality and a concerning rational Right. So the same may be applied to the social (political) domain by logical extrapolation of the syllogism.

The not legitimate legitimation embodies that kind of legitimacy that Bertrand Russell called «the legitimacy initially imposed against the individual wills by a naked Power», a kind of Power imposing itself violently, which, in its historical evolution, progresses towards a «traditional Power», which, in another hand, later seems to be «socially natural» and thus giving to itself that kind of feature, because became acceptable due to the custom – but not freely accepted in its generation and not really accepted by the will of an autonomous majority expressed through a referendum. Conditions that we need to have in order to make rationally legitimated any kind of political regime.

Follow the philosophers is to follow the right thought was what Plato and Condorcet meant and showed in their philosophic writings. «The society not guided by philosophers will be guided by charlatans», concretely wrote Condorcet.

08-11-14.