Italian
They resemble each other, share the same root, and both orbit around the concept of law. Yet, “legal” and “legitimate” express two distinct worlds, the boundary of which is often the stage for ethical and social conflicts.
The distinction, on paper, seems straightforward. Legal is what the law establishes as a norm: a written perimeter that must be respected, under penalty of a sanction. Legitimate, on the other hand, is what we consider right in the name of a personal freedom that the rule of law should guarantee, as long as it does not harm others. Stated this way, everything appears clear. In reality, however, the short circuit between these two concepts is continuous, especially when the State transforms from a guarantor of public health to an entrepreneur of distress.
Let’s take the case of gambling. From a medical point of view, gambling – like smoking and alcohol – is a behavior that induces addiction and pathologies (gambling addiction), causing evident social and health damage. On the other hand, gambling brings in billions in revenue for public coffers. Here lies the paradox: gambling in Italy is perfectly legal, but ethically illegitimate, as the State should protect the health of its citizens (as stated in Article 32 of the Constitution) and certainly not foster diseases to fill its coffers.
This split personality is reflected in bingo halls, in the slot machines spread across the territory, and in licensed casinos, which generate significant revenue that no one dreams of dismantling. There, a commercial schizophrenia unfolds: the State encourages, or at least tolerates, citizens losing money and health, only to later have to spend public funds to care for them.
The debate becomes more complicated if we extend it to other sectors, such as prostitution. Periodically, the discussion returns to legalization: transforming sex workers into taxpayers, complete with taxes and social security contributions. In this case, the goal would be to make “legal” (regulated) what for many is a “legitimate” claim to freely dispose of their own body. A similar, but inverse, argument applies to the consumption of certain drugs: for a segment of public opinion, the freedom to consume is considered legitimate as a private choice, but the law and international agreements continue to render it illegal.
What does this disconnect teach us? That being free does not mean living without rules, but accepting and recognizing limits.
On one hand, the law has the duty to evolve, adapting to the needs of citizens and striving to be as non-intrusive as possible; on the other hand, our legitimate freedom requires a strong capacity for self-governance. Nothing is absolute or immutable: neither the laws that govern a country nor the desires of those who are required to respect those laws. The true challenge of a mature society lies in reconciling the legality of norms with the legitimacy of values, preventing the State from being the first to barter the well-being of its citizens in the name of profit.
