> So you can point out legitimate owners of the soil? Was there a contract among some folks? Maybe you have some theory of property rights. ... Btw, slavery once was legal too. It must be covered by your theory of justice.
[EDITED:] Your questions aren't especially helpful. "Legitimate" is merely a label. It's meaningful only insofar as it influences human behavior.
No doubt some so-called Native Americans still view the current "ownership" of the North American landmass as illegitimate and unjust. But you'd be hard-pressed to find many others whose behavior has been (or will be) the least bit affected by that view.
As to a theory of property rights, and for that matter a theory of justice, try this:
* A right is no more and no less than a personal desire that -- in a time period that's meaningful to you -- you can effectively cause to be enforced, either alone or in collaboration with others whom you can persuade to share that particular desire; and
* Justice should be regarded as consisting of scalable, sustainable happiness -- but unfortunately (1) many people regard justice as more or less identically equal to what they want at any given moment, and (2) we operate in a not-inconsiderable amount of ignorance as to what scalable, sustainable happiness entails. (In that regard, John Rawls's famous "veil of ignorance," from his A Theory of Justice, can be a useful decision-making tool.)
Just to make it clear: I am not advocating any definition of justice or theory of property rights.
What is "legitimate" in one place can very well be illegitimate in another. And it has nothing to do with mine or yours personal ethics.
My one and only argument is a response to a justification of violence. When a man comes to me and says "You must serve in russian army or I will kick into a jail", it's usually covered with some theory that must justify violence in the eyes of people around. Normally, people wouldn't like any government activity if it was openly violent without any justification. My entire point of debates here on HN is to uncover that violence. When people really see the gun, they may take more informed decisions about their own ethical views.
I will not debate with a person who openly tells me "I will kill you because I can". I'll just run away or call for help. But if the person tries to bullshit me why he has a right to do so, I'd love to see if he can prove his wonderful theory (and I can be as sarcastic as I like because I am the last person here who could hurt anyone because of disagreement because I consistently advocate peace and voluntarism over violent coercion).
Example: NSA does something that people do not like. I try to point out that government forces you to pay for those activities and uses the same force to limit your ability to control these things. It does not matter if you like or dislike the government. You should realise what is it and how it works. My humble suggestion is to consider withdrawing your participation and pay only for something you like. Then, you'd either have to openly advocate for violent extraction of money from everyone including me, into my face, or reconsider your political views.
[EDITED:] Your questions aren't especially helpful. "Legitimate" is merely a label. It's meaningful only insofar as it influences human behavior.
No doubt some so-called Native Americans still view the current "ownership" of the North American landmass as illegitimate and unjust. But you'd be hard-pressed to find many others whose behavior has been (or will be) the least bit affected by that view.
As to a theory of property rights, and for that matter a theory of justice, try this:
* A right is no more and no less than a personal desire that -- in a time period that's meaningful to you -- you can effectively cause to be enforced, either alone or in collaboration with others whom you can persuade to share that particular desire; and
* Justice should be regarded as consisting of scalable, sustainable happiness -- but unfortunately (1) many people regard justice as more or less identically equal to what they want at any given moment, and (2) we operate in a not-inconsiderable amount of ignorance as to what scalable, sustainable happiness entails. (In that regard, John Rawls's famous "veil of ignorance," from his A Theory of Justice, can be a useful decision-making tool.)