Where does a state gets its legitimacy from?

>Social contract

Started out that way. Then as a traditional institution it becomes bloodlines.

All authority stems from the ability to enforce it

If you have a bigger stick than your opponent then you're the authority

Trust, mostly

People place trust in the state to make sure that goods and services are met, that infrastructure is built/maintained and that the borders are defended, etc.

once that trust is broken, once a state is unwilling or unable to provide food, maintain roads or buildings, defend the area, then the people will reject and replace the system for another than can be trusted to meet the people's demands.

Systems of repression such as denying the right to assemble or speak ill of the state, mass arrests of state enemies, and so on can extend a weak state's life a little longer, but by no means can keep such measures in action forever, and will fall too from that lack of trust that hurts its legitimacy.

By international recognition.

>erections

Hmm

Consent of the governed. People want to say "muh monopoly on force" but when people no longer consent to being ruled by whoever they initiate violence so it's the same thing.

There could be a "Government" which exerts 100% positive control over it's "governed", i.e extreme slavery or imprisonment. Then in that case the governed don't consent but can't do shit about it. So we are back to force establishing legitimacy.

monopoly on violence

God

The perception of representation and legitimate democracy along with threat of force.

This. A State find it's "legitimacy" later, when shills shill and plebs pleb.

All authority ultimately comes from God.

The will of the people, the ability to convince them that your government is the correct one. Having a monopoly on violence is nice, but you need to convince the common man to go along with it. If you didn't then every occupation on earth would have worked out without a hitch.

Jesus fucking christ, I'm quoting constructionism. What's happening to me?

Depends what you mean by a state

Original despotic kingdoms got their legitimacy from a monopoly on violence and by virtue of being the property of the most powerful people. People were forced to abide by laws and religions in order to keep order and to keep the king in charge.

Nation-states as we know them get their authority partially from the will of the people to form a collective so that they may be more than the sum of their parts. Of course, there is still a despotic element as there always will be, but it's diluted. There are many more factions vying for power and seeking to advance their own interests, which stops the state from being a despotic tyranny.

Correct me if you think I'm wrong, very tired atm lol

Edit
democracy, violence and elections
monarchy, violence and bloodlines
theocracies, violence and divine right
autocracies, violence and the most resources

Edit edit
>democracy
fear
>autocracy
violence

Everything lies somewhere between these two, and the size and power of the government directly correlates to the amount of fear and/or violence that effects people

It doesn't, taxation is theft.

Depends on the political culture of the nation.

Mandate of heaven.

From being the proper representation of the Idea.

the liberal answer is "consent of the governed", and the imperialist answer is "force". both are materialist answers; the correct answer is "the culture that binds together the state's subjects".

...