This assignment will highlight the complicated nature of this question and will include a Christian view on the topic and ask crucial questions about whether or not democracy is necessary for the government to be legitimate and if this democracy legitimizes the government's actions, how does the government enjoy the right to govern while citizens assume the duty to obey even if the government's policies go against ethical and moral values? Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essay To come to a conclusion to this question it is important to first understand what the word legitimate means and the implications it has in this context where the definition of the word found in the source is used c, legitimacy is a noun and it is the quality of being reasonable and acceptable/the state of being just or honest. Moving on from this consideration we can begin to ask ourselves the question: is democracy necessary for a government to be legitimate? This question is relevant when you think about all the atrocities that have taken place in history while a “democratic government” or a government that had the essence of democracy was in power. Let's take Hitler for example. Hitler came to power in a democracy with a highly liberal constitution, and in part by using democratic freedoms to undermine and then destroy the democracy itself. But that made his government and the actions he took legitimate, no, something like mass genocide cannot be considered legitimate, no matter how you may try to justify it. This is a great example of how democracy does not legitimize a government. Which now leads to the question asked in source A about what makes a government legitimate, most people would turn to the answer that democracy is a product of the will of the people who voted, which is the consensus of the majority. Source A also states that According to the Economist Intelligence Unit's 2016 Democracy Index, only 19 countries, out of the 167 studied, can be considered fully democratic. It is also important to remember that Adolf Hitler and other despots received the majority of votes. But remember that the question is not fundamentally about the authority of a government, as stated in source A “Despotic governments exercise authority without being legitimate.” But we can get closest to an answer by looking at the philosopher John Locke who stated that no government is legitimate unless carried on with the consent of the governed, and that consent can only be provided through majority rule. Therefore, if a government violates fundamental rights, Locke was particularly concerned with property rights, the people have the right to replace the government. Less than a century later, Locke's views were reiterated in the United States Declaration of Independence. So we have a partial answer: a government can be considered legitimate when every decision is made with the consent of the governed. Another thing that needs to be considered is that the utilitarian concept of “beneficial consequences” is another philosophy used to legitimize a government. ; in this case, based on utility. From the point of view of “beneficial consequences”, the legitimacy of a government depends on whether it promotes the happiness of citizens, as can also be found in source A. An example of such a theory would be when the anti-democratic government of Chilean General Augusto Pinochet is questioned. often offered as an example of the “beneficial consequences” argument. Pinochet assumed power in a coup that overthrew the democratically elected socialist governmentby Salvador Allende. Pinochet's military government implemented economic liberalization policies that produced what has been described as the “Miracle of Chile,” where the country was, for much of the 1990s, the best-performing economy in Latin America. Legitimacy is vital to justify governments' use of their cohesive power. Since the role of government is to create and maintain a right within society, government is legitimate only when it protects our individual rights. Another important aspect is the position we Christians should take regarding this question which is addressed in source D “Many centuries later the Israelites made known their desire to have a king over them so that they could be like the nations around them (1 Samuel 8) . God's answer was clear. It was not His desire nor was it for the good of the people to have human government over them. In 2 Chronicles 6:5 God reaffirms that He has not chosen any man to govern His people. The Judeo-Christian scriptures nowhere teach that the voice of the people is the voice of God. It teaches that when people make requests of God that are not in harmony with His will, He can answer their pain and send “thinness in their soul” (page 501). Historical events to date would certainly confirm that the governments of men are not a blessing but rather a curse and ultimately bring “thinness” to the soul of a people. God warned the Israelites how their chosen government would deal with them. It would involve them in wars. He would conscript their sons and daughters to fight and die in his wars. He would entrust them for himself to the manufacture of instruments of war. He would take their assets – private property – giving them to his political favorites. It would take away their freedom and enslave them,” this highlights important questions for us as Christians, such as whether governments can be considered legitimate by us Christians since it goes against God's will. Since the only person we should allow to governing us is God. But the fact remains that the government remains as it is necessary at this time, so what makes it legitimate and what are the reasons why a government is necessary. When we still talk about the legitimacy of government, it is important to ask why do good people obey bad laws? As asked in source B, why do we try to legitimize a government where many laws are responsible for massive economic inequality and the answer can be found in source B, which is the principle of hierarchy which is basically the fear of the government having power if you like their ability to incarcerate you if you don't respect them. However, in most of the world today, governments claim legitimacy on the basis that they were voted in by fair elections, however it could still be argued that Hitler was too, but that did not make his government legitimate, the government can be legitimate only when it creates and maintains a right respectful of society, the government is legitimate only when it protects our individual rights. As we move forward, the whole question becomes more complex, but a conclusion to the question is offered later in Source B in the form of how voluntary federation would be capable of stopping bad people from doing bad things in theory. First, the very legitimacy of the government of the voluntary federation requires that all legislators uphold the good principles of equality and mutual aid. In contrast, the federal government's legitimacy has nothing to do with upholding these principles, the same principles that distinguish good laws from bad ones. Secondly, as stated in the source: “Secondly, when laws are enacted by assemblies.