Laws are legitimized in a two check system. First the powers that be have to decide they are law.
Then the people (of the nation and of the world) need to be willing to abide by or tolerate the law.
If the second check fails, the law will be unenforced, or if the law is terrible enough, the people will tear down whatever system put it in place along with whoever went along with it.
There was nothing legitimate about the Nuremberg trials, for some reason we preferred that kangaroo court over just killing the bad guys and finishing that page of history.
There are several fold flaws in this argument. The “two checks” fail. Examples- the first being a dictatorship- in which the people lack the means to rise up with any sufficient force to oppose the law or government will. The next being contained in this meme it’s self. The hollocaust was a “secret” in the open. It involved the active and complicit participation, knowledge or suspicion at some level by many thousands. This example applies to many appalling things on many levels of severity. There are plenty of failures resulting in wide spread social, environmental, or physical harm which even when exposed result in little or no change or push back. People are complicit as while wrong is done and they know it, opposing said wrong would put their lives or life styles in jeaporday. The “sovereign citizens” use this exact logic- that by not recognizing the authority of the government or the interpretation of certain laws they are immune. It doesn’t work.
All that is required to make “law” is either the force of might or coercion to compel people to follow your will. As you say, a law without the power to enforce it is meaningless, the UN and more so the former League of Nations are perfect examples. Recent events in Syria show that “law” without teeth is no more law than me standing on a subway car and declaring myself king of the world. The second “check” is not so much a check but a self evident truth of will. To subject on other to your will you must have the means to do so. What people naturally are inclined to do is what suits them best. If it weren’t the case we wouldn’t need law, as by default a criminal has rejected the law in their own interests and judgments.
They wouldn’t allow any of the mentioned if they considered the oppressed people as “people.” Jews in the holocaust, Black people in slavery, they were considered less that human. That’s why it was legal.
“Rights” are relative and cultural. The subversion of rights can be done within the letter of the law, even if that requires some degree of deception. No person may be discriminated against in employment by race for example. However one can use clues to discern race, and then reject said applicant on whatever reason they choose- and then it is legal- even if the real reason was race. If you mandate a quota for hiring certain groups to prevent this, you’ve now fed a bias in which the most qualified applicant may now be denied employment because of their race- but in a different way. They are denied simply because the quota demands another race be hired. So sadly, “rights” are not the best way either unless we can agree on and enforce a standard of basic rights in a way that doesn’t rely on the honor system, or we can truly destroy the prejudice or socioeconomic conditions at the heart of the issue. The second being unlikely for quite some time, but still a worth while goal to work to.
Here's a quibble: slavery and segregation were legal, but actually the Holocaust was not. Which is one reason the Nazi government tried to keep it a secret.
Faulty logic @guest. Governments and even individuals often donperfectly legal things which they try to keep from being known as much as possible. In these cases they aren’t hiding a thing because it is illegal- but because they are aware that our actions have consequences and effect the perception of others. It is difficult or impossible to commit genocide and “spin” that in a way that makes one able to still claim to be “the good guy” no matter what logic one has for that genocide. The Germans were well aware- if not that what they were doing was horrible and wrong- at least that it would not be well received internationally, and would likely be poorly received by many civilians. They knew it could galvanize additional enemies against them, cause domestic strife which would take away from resources available to the war fronts, and possibly alienate their allies. Secret doesn’t=illegal and legal doesn’t=right.
Then the people (of the nation and of the world) need to be willing to abide by or tolerate the law.
If the second check fails, the law will be unenforced, or if the law is terrible enough, the people will tear down whatever system put it in place along with whoever went along with it.
There was nothing legitimate about the Nuremberg trials, for some reason we preferred that kangaroo court over just killing the bad guys and finishing that page of history.