@Quatrus @robcayman it's sometimes useful to do an legitimacy of dominion test. For example I can exercise dominion over my small cousin by holding them so that they don't run across a busy street. I and most people would argue that this is a legitimate of my exercise of dominion over my cousin. If a state (or an entity) exercises dominion over people to prevent say racism. For example if it bans racially motivated animus then I'd say that's a legitimate exercise of dominion.
@gaymanifold @Quatrus
I dont think there is really a legitimacy of dominion. In the case of the child running into the street, preventing harm to the child is not an act of dominion. Dominion relates directly to sovereignty, in which case the rescuer in this scenario would have supreme authority. Clearly that's not the case, since the child is able to run towards traffic to begin with. Instead, it is better to think of this example in terms of stewardship. The rescuer isn't claiming legitimate dominion, but rather, taking responsibility for maintaining the health and safety of their overall social ecology. The consequences of not acting responsibly, would be detrimental to the overall system.
In the example of state dominion over racism, there is no intent for stewardship. We can very easily show that any rights based on Race, are provided grudgingly, and thwarted at every opportunity by the state itself, knowing that racist sentiment was created and fostered by public and private bureaus of the state. This is dominion, but it is only legitimate, because the state says it is legitimate. The closest analog would be if the rescuer in the first example were to save the child from cars that it sent to kill the child.