If you want to delegate your responsibilities to your fellow human beings to someone else, go for it. — NOS4A2

No, you’re confused. I’m the one voluntarily paying for these programs so that other people who can’t work can get something to eat. You’d deny them these programs because you’re an apologist for plutocracy. But thankfully you’re on an island somewhere, so it doesn’t matter.

But I don’t think that favoring a piece of legislation—in other words sitting around and doing nothing—is any sign that you’re helping anyone but yourself. — NOS4A2

Nice projection.

Not nothing: paying taxes. Which hardly helps me. Some of that goes to things like social security, Medicare, and Medicaid. That helps a lot of people indeed — far more than I could ever help individually.

On the other hand, the onus is on the person crying about paying taxes and about state programs to be going out of their way to help others. Show all us suckers how it’s really done in a libertarian paradise. So until I see YOU out there feeding people or housing them, take your bullshit elsewhere.

The employer is forced to deduct a specific amount or else he is breaking the law. — NOS4A2

So he made a choice: comply with the laws of one country - at least until he can use the legislative process to change them, move to another country, or stop doing business.
You have the same choice.

All food is acquired with work, buddy. — NOS4A2

Yah. Somebody's work - not necessarily the diner's.

Communism violates one of the most basic rights of human beings that of ownership such as your own property or farm. — invicta

Some states do that. They don't have to adhere to, or even profess communist ideology to do that.

Republicans in the 2015-17 state budget expanded the types of oil pipeline business structures granted eminent domain power in Wisconsin.

Private business does that, too.
Communes don't.

A mildly socialistic government or even a Scandinavian version of socialism would be preferred to outright communism for the simple reason that shelter should be a basic human right in the face of homelessness and the discomforts of natures harshness. — invicta

Capitalism has no respect for any kind of basic human right to shelter, food, health care or anything else. Communism - the principle, absolutely; the bastardized practice, half-assedly - does state: "to each according to his need".
If you mean the seizure of private villas in Eastern Europe after WWII, in order to accommodate families left homeless by bombing, yes, states did do that. They also amalgamated privately held (I won't go into the history of feudalism; it ain't pretty.) lands into farming collectives, most of which were badly mismanaged - because the planners were political city boys who had no clue about agriculture - but that didn't leave the farmers without shelter; it just turned most farmers into employees of the state, from employees of the hereditary landed gentry.
Of course, those pseudo-communist regimes carried out the nationalization programs brutally and inefficiently, and not at all in accordance with the ideal.
Communes don't.

So he made a choice: comply with the laws of one country - at least until he can use the legislative process to change them, move to another country, or stop doing business.
You have the same choice.

And people have the choice not to exploit their fellow man. Stop taking another’s stuff. Quit forcing another to labor for you. Find other means to satisfy your wants that do not involve exploiting others.

Such like suggests (to me at least) that anti-taxers go by (dogmatic) ideology, but I could surely be wrong. — jorndoe

My gripe with states goes further than taxes, but you are right - it's ideological in nature.

I'm against violence of any kind (with the possible exception of self-defense), whether it's committed by a common thug or organized and condoned by millions of people.

States operate on unethical principles and make me complicit by force.

The true anarchist/individualist is always outnumbered. Will it be by organized thugs or a democratic majority? Or will they be alone? Choosing the "least bad" is rational. — jorndoe

I think there is a point in discussing the principles that underlie our societies, regardless of whether there is a feasible alternative.

The understanding that states operate on a principle of violence is an important one, especially on a thread about communism, since communism first requires feeding the beast (in the hopes it will eventually abolish itself).

You can opt out of the social contract in several ways: — Vera Mont

I don't believe in the legitimacy of a "contract" that has been unilaterally imposed.

I also don't believe I should bear a cost for avoiding something that was unjustly imposed on me in the first place.

The problem with the argument @Tzeentch and @NOS4A2 are putting forward (as I believe we've discussed before) is that property rights are not intrinsically connected to violence.

The government could, quite easily, simply take what it believes is its property without any violence at all. I could just remove the money from you bank account. It could rock up to your house whilst you're out, break in, and take your stuff. Or, it could do so whilst you're in (since the same proscription applies to you - you can't use violence against them to make the stop).

It sounds like you can base it on non-violence, but it still revolves around property rights, when it comes to taxes.

What you are describing is the state using its extraordinary power to put the individual in a position where they are unable to resist.

That in itself could be seen as an act of violence (or at the very least belonging in the same category), however it's probably useful to understand that the state's violence is a direct reaction to this act of resistance.

An individual that resists the state's will, will eventually (usually quite swiftly) be met with violence.

That the state has means to put the individual in a position where resistance is impossible, is not a redeeming factor to the way states operate.

I would not judge a person who takes things from others by putting them in situations where they are completely unable to resist any more favorably than a person who takes things by force.

Or, it could do so whilst you're in (since the same proscription applies to you - you can't use violence against them to make the stop). — Isaac

There are ways other than physical violence against persons with which one could resist, and they would be met swiftly with actual violence against your person by the state.

What you are describing is the state using its extraordinary power to put the individual in a position where they are unable to resist. — Tzeentch

Not at all. Many individuals are capable of the sort of hacking, or deception needed to extract money from a bank account. It happens all the time, it doesn't require extraordinary state power, an ordinary thief could do it.

That in itself could be seen as an act of violence (or at the very least belonging in the same category), however it's probably useful to understand that the state's violence is a direct reaction to this act of resistance. — Tzeentch

Yes, I agree. That's my point. If merely putting someone in a position where it is difficult to resist their will is 'violence' then all corporate activity counts as violence too. All activity by any person or entity that is more powerful than another in any way counts as 'violence'. We have way bigger fish to fry than the state.

That the state has means to put the individual in a position where resistance is impossible, is not a redeeming factor to the way states operate. — Tzeentch

I didn't say anything about resistance. I just said the state could take your money non-violently. You could try and take it back non-violently too. We could oppose violence entirely. It wouldn't stop people taking the property they thought was theirs. The best hacker/thief/con-man would have all the money. No violence needed.

I would not judge a person who takes things from others by putting them in situations where they are completely unable to resist any more favorably than a person who takes things by force. — Tzeentch

Again, I'm not denying anyone the ability to resist. By all means do exactly the same to get your property back. Sneak into the government's vaults, hack their bank accounts... The best thief keeps everything.

There are ways other than physical violence against persons with which one could resist, and they would be met swiftly with actual violence against your person by the state. — Tzeentch

Yes. I'm agreeing with you about violence. I'm going on to say that it's got little to do with taxation, which is about property. If we banned violence, if the state no longer had the monopoly on it, there would still be exactly the same issue about who owned what only it would be resolved by non-violent means (theft) instead of violent means. It doesn't lessen, or increase the tax burden to change how it's collected. Deception, or threat of violence. Both equally viable means of collecting taxes owed.

You seem to be arguing against the result (property distribution), but using the method (violence).

Not at all. Many individuals are capable of the sort of hacking, or deception needed to extract money from a bank account. It happens all the time, it doesn't require extraordinary state power, an ordinary thief could do it. — Isaac

I just said the state could take your money non-violently. You could try and take it back non-violently too. We could oppose violence entirely. It wouldn't stop people taking the property they thought was theirs. The best hacker/thief/con-man would have all the money. No violence needed. — Isaac

If physical violence was off the table completely, protecting one's belongings would be easy enough. I could chain myself to my belongings so that any attempt to seperate me from them would result in an act of physical violence and voilá.

Physical violence is something particularly insidious.

I can protect myself from a hacker or a thief easily enough. I cannot protect myself from the violence of the state, which is of course exactly the reason why states use and protect their monopoly on violence, why conflicts have a tendency to devolve into violence, etc. The last argument of kings, as Louis XIV famously enscribed on his cannons.

We have way bigger fish to fry than the state. — Isaac

I disagree with this.

While I agree that ever more powerful corporations are a problem on the same line as states, I view states as being equally responsible for that problem, and not as a viable alternative. They're two sides of the same rotten coin.

Then there's the added dimension that states are actively trying to make me complicit in their misdeeds by forcing me to contribute to their purse.

I have little power and moral ground (or desire, for that matter) to decide for others what they should do. I do however have a moral ground not to be made complicit in the misdeeds of others.

If physical violence was off the table completely, protecting one's belongings would be easy enough. I could chain myself to my belongings so that any attempt to seperate me from them would result in an act of physical violence and voilá. — Tzeentch

What about your money? Any land you think you own? Possessions like boats, cars, buildings...?

I can protect myself from a hacker or a thief easily enough. — Tzeentch

Only if you're better than them. As I said, the best hacker/thief/conman gets all the money. That might still be the state. No violence is needed.

While I agree that ever more powerful corporations are a problem on the same line as states, I view states as being equally responsible for that problem, and not as a viable alternative. They're two sides of the same rotten coin. — Tzeentch

Yes, absolutely.

Then there's the added dimension that states are actively trying to make me complicit in their misdeeds by forcing me to contribute to their purse. — Tzeentch

This is the argument I'm challenging. You said...

I would not judge a person who takes things from others by putting them in situations where they are completely unable to resist any more favorably than a person who takes things by force. — Tzeentch

...that describes most of the world's larger corporations. In Indonesia, for example, it is impossible to get insurance without using a company majority owned by Black Rock. They've simply bought out (quite legally) all competition.

Google, Black Rock, Vanguard, Microsoft...
All do exactly that to an extent that is larger than most governments. The US government might still come out as public enemy number one, but we'd come to Black Rock way before the majority of the rest if the world in terms of "tak[ing] things from others by putting them in situations where they are completely unable to resist"

What about your money? Any land you think you own? Possessions like boats, cars, buildings...? — Isaac

I'm not a particularly materialistic person.

...that describes most of the world's larger corporations. In Indonesia, for example, it is impossible to get insurance without using a company majority owned by Black Rock. They've simply bought out (quite legally) all competition.

Google, Black Rock, Vanguard, Microsoft...
All for exactly that to an extent that is larger than most governments. The US government might still come out as public enemy number one, but we'd come to Black Rock way before the majority of the rest if the world in terms of "tak[ing] things from others by putting them in situations where they are completely unable to resist" — Isaac

I consider all of that to be unethical as well. But I view physical violence a degree worse than the coercive power of powerful corporations (if only by a little), which is why the physical violence of states is, in my view, not an actual alternative.

Consider for example that I wouldn't even have insurance if I wasn't directly obligated by the state to be insured. An example of how the state's violence gives coercive power to the corporation.

Likewise, big pharma is problematic, but it becomes inescapable when states start mandating their product.

I'm not a particularly materialistic person. — Tzeentch

Sure, but you have a car, yes? A house? Else you've certainly no concern about taxation if you're so frugal.

The point I'm making here is that what we can rightfully possess (what it would be 'theft' for the government to take) is a separate issue from the means by which government takes it.

Using violence (or threat of it) might be wrong in all cases, but it doesn't in any way preclude the current distribution of property - including your tax burden - it just changes the means by which it can be collected.

Are we in a better state if the most violent entity has all the property, or the most cunning thief? I can't see how one is much better than the other. The weak still suffer the same abuse whether they are weak physically or weak mentally.

I consider all of that to be unethical as well. But I view physical violence a degree worse than the coercive power of powerful corporations (if only by a little), which is why the physical violence of states is, in my view, not an actual alternative. — Tzeentch

As above, I'm not unsympathetic to this view but I'm struggling to see an argument as to why violence (as opposed to cunning) creates a somehow less tolerable inequality.

I don't personally see how I'd care if my land was taken from me by threat of violence or by cunning. I'm no less landless either way. So for example...

big pharma is problematic, but it becomes inescapable when states start mandating their product. — Tzeentch

The state might make someone take a product by threat of violence, the physically weak would comply.

The company might do so by clever advertising and psychological manipulation, the mentally weak comply.

What's the difference? The resultant inequality is the same, the resultant abuse of power is the same. I'm not seeing how having one's stuff taken from one by threat of violence is worse than having one's stuff taken from one by cunning. One is equally left without one's stuff in both cases.

The point I'm making here is that what we can rightfully possess (what it would be 'theft' for the government to take) is a separate issue from the means by which government takes it.

Using violence (or threat of it) might be wrong in all cases, but it doesn't in any way preclude the current distribution of property - including your tax burden - it just changes the means by which it can be collected. — Isaac

Assuming I understand your point correctly, I would argue that the way people should distribute property is through voluntary means.

As above, I'm not unsympathetic to this view but I'm struggling to see an argument as to why violence (as opposed to cunning) creates a somehow less tolerable inequality. — Isaac

The state might make someone take a product by threat of violence, the physically weak would comply.

The company might do so by clever advertising and psychological manipulation, the mentally weak comply.

What's the difference? — Isaac

Simply put, the state maintains a monopoly on violence, which means any act of resistance will be further cause for violence. Resistance is forbidden.

The thief holds no monopoly on cunning, and I can (fairly easily, I would argue) use my own wits to protect myself against it. Without a monopoly on violence the thief can't stop me from resisting their efforts.

The company holds no monopoly on manipulation, and I can use my mental capacity however I wish to resist the company's influence.


Further, I distinguish between actions against one's body and action's against one's belongings. The body is the one belonging that irrevocably belongs to the individual, while there can be a debate about the rest.


That isn't to say that companies cannot also perform actions that are or are akin to physical violence. Depriving people of their basic life needs, for instance, is in my view on par with actual physical violence, and I would judge it just as harshly.

Assuming I understand your point correctly, I would argue that the way people should distribute property is through voluntary means. — Tzeentch

I agree, but I'm quibbling over what 'voluntary' means in the light of other individuals manipulating the environment within which that decision is made.

So, we can draw a line at someone literally extracting your possessions from you by force. that's clearly not voluntary. But what about them taking your possessions when you're out? Is that voluntary (you left them insufficiently guarded)? If not, then we have any possession taken without consent being 'involuntary'. So If I think I own the river from which some company is extracting water, they're taking that possession of mine without my consent, yes?

Simply put, the state maintains a monopoly on violence, which means any act of resistance will be further cause for violence. Resistance is forbidden.

The thief holds no monopoly on cunning, and I can (fairly easily, I would argue) use my own wits to protect myself against it. Without a monopoly on violence the thief can't stop me from resisting their efforts.

The company holds no monopoly on manipulation, and I can use my mental capacity however I wish to resist the company's influence. — Tzeentch

I don't understand this use you're making of 'monopoly' here. As far as I can tell, I can do violence right now. The government doesn't appear to have a monopoly on it. I own a rifle. I could go out right now and start threatening people with it, getting them to give me their stuff, and I'd probably get quite a bit of stuff that way. The government would then, of course, threaten me with their much bigger guns and take all that stuff off me. We've both used violence to get stuff, the government has no monopoly on it, it's just the biggest.

But someone (or something) is always the biggest. Line up people (or entities) in order of capacity to harm, and something will be the top of that list, that something will then be able to treat those way down the list in exactly the way the government treats us now. I understand you're merely saying that's wrong, and I agree. But there's no distinction, for me, between the government being at the top of the 'violence' list, and a corporation being at the top of the 'manipulation' list. Someone/thing is always at the top of whatever power list and those at the top can use that power to extract stuff from those much lower down the list.

I don't see any justification for calling the fact that the government tops the 'violence' list a 'monopoly', but saying that the fact that a small cabal of corporations top the 'manipulation' list as not a monopoly.

I therefore also don't see how removing one form of power has any relation to property. It will simply be distributed according the the remaining forms of power.

I distinguish between actions against one's body and action's against one's belongings. The body is the one belonging that irrevocably belongs to the individual, while there can be a debate about the rest. — Tzeentch

Yes. that's rather the point I'm making. Tax comes under 'the rest' since it can be extracted by means other than violence (theft, deception, market manipulation, psychological manipulation...)

Depriving people of their basic life needs, for instance, is in my view on par with actual physical violence, and I would judge it just as harshly. — Tzeentch

That's a good foundation for agreement. Can we agree, further, on what constitutes "basic life needs?"

So, we can draw a line at someone literally extracting your possessions from you by force. that's clearly not voluntary. But what about them taking your possessions when you're out? Is that voluntary (you left them insufficiently guarded)? If not, then we have any possession taken without consent being 'involuntary'. So If I think I own the river from which some company is extracting water, they're taking that possession of mine without my consent, yes? — Isaac

Basically, yes.

I don't see any justification for calling the fact that the government tops the 'violence' list a 'monopoly', but saying that the fact that a small cabal of corporations top the 'manipulation' list as not a monopoly. — Isaac

Depending on the circumstances, it could be called a monopoly. I think for something like "manipulation" that would get rather complicated, but in theory it's certainly possible. Monopolies are generally going to be problematic and another source of unethical behavior. If a monopoly on manipulation, as you call it, comes to a point of "mind control", perhaps that can even be considered a form of violence.

I will argue though that the fact that the individual can try to resist, so therefore the state does not hold a monopoly on violence is misleading. There is obviously some threshold at which point the entry barrier becomes too high to overcome, at which point we start viewing things as monopolies. That goes for companies and states alike.

I therefore also don't see how removing one form of power has any relation to property. It will simply be distributed according the the remaining forms of power. — Isaac

Possibly so. In a theoretical case where violence is taken out of the picture completely, I would argue distribution by those remaining forms of power is preferable, albeit not perfect either.

Tax comes under 'the rest' since it can be extracted by means other than violence (theft, deception, market manipulation, psychological manipulation...) — Isaac

Yes, so discussion about what belongs to who is of course possible, and to a certain extent probably inevitable. However, the means of arbitration that states use - unilateral imposition under threat of violence - is arguably the absolute worst way to do it, hence my protests.

That's a good foundation for agreement. Can we agree, further, on what constitutes "basic life needs?" — Isaac

Let's leave this for another time, as to not derail the thread too much. :up:

And people have the choice not to exploit their fellow man. Stop taking another’s stuff. Quit forcing another to labor for you. Find other means to satisfy your wants that do not involve exploiting others. — NOS4A2

Excellent suggestions!
"People's money." "People's stuff." How does that happen?

How many babies have squirmed into the world with a bag of money or deed to a house clutched in their tiny fists?
People are born naked, helpless and homely: they own nothing.
Later they get things, by various means, through the altruistic, co-operative, contractual or coerced efforts of various other people.
In order for people to own anything, there has to be a pre-existing social infrastructure. Social organizations have rules, protocols, flaw and injustices. Participants in a society influence what form the society and its institutions take.
Griping is one of many ways to to express a desire for change.

I don't believe in the legitimacy of a "contract" that has been unilaterally imposed. — Tzeentch

"I never asked to be born!!!" Tough; you're here now. The exit is over there.

Tough; you're here now. The exit is over there. — Vera Mont

Have you ever considered taking your own advice in response to your criticism of modern society?

Have you ever considered taking your own advice in response to your criticism of modern society? — Tzeentch

I'm not the one railing against having to pull my weight - but yes; it's under consideration; exit strategies are in place.

it's under consideration; exit strategies are in place. — Vera Mont

Sounds more like an exit fantasy if you're still here. Why are you wasting your time complaining on an internet forum?

Why are you wasting your time complaining on an internet forum? — Tzeentch

Huh? What have I complained about?

I'm happy to pay taxes. I'm at ease with having laws and regulations. I have suggested ways in which one or two who are emphatically unhappy with laws and taxation might change their circumstances or change the society or opt out of their contractual obligations. All positive.

To get back to the OP (apologies for contributing to its derailment): of course communism is possible. That a community can control production, and produce things for need and use and not for profit, is not hard to imagine. The word “communism” is so loaded, however, as to make a discussion about it rather tricky.

Has it ever been tried? Not in modern history.

Has capitalism (in the sense of Adam Smith or laissez fair) been tried? No.

Both ideas have been used as a guise. For what? Well, look around. Look at history. Look at the distribution of wealth and power. Whether it be the USSR, China, Cuba, Sweden, the US, or Japan — nowhere do you find capitalism or communism. All you find is varying policies of what C. Wright Mills called the “power elite.”

So yes, it’s possible. But for now it’s a pipe dream. Similar to the pipe dreams of the couple “libertarians” (i.e., unwitting corporatists) we have here who drone on about abolishing the state. They could very well be communists for all we know! All it really serves as, however, is an obfuscation of real world issues.

So take healthcare. What’s the strategy for better healthcare in, say, the US? “Abolish the state” people will be violently against any government intervention. It must remain in the hands of the private sector, despite some of the worst outcomes and despite what other countries do (national healthcare). Result? Poor people suffer and die unnecessarily.

Or take guns. Can’t have government regulations, because they do everything wrong, and we must abolish the state. So we mustn’t impose the undue burden of going through training or filling out some extra forms before we place an assault weapon in the hands of a lunatic. That’d infringe on “freedom.” Results? More mass shootings than days in 2023. People suffering and dying, unnecessarily.

So once again it’s just a cover for those in power. In this case, insurance companies, private healthcare, and gun manufacturers. They don’t want the government to interfere, so it doesn’t happen. And our “libertarian” friends, and some communists as well, who think they’re being so very principled and consistent, are simply a new kind of useful idiot.

One can search the entire website for the phrase “abolish the state” and find out that Mikie is the only one who ever drones on about it, hilariously enough.

One can search the entire website for “statist” and find something else out — Namely that the term is often used to describe me by none other than the guy who finds it hilarious that I’ve used the phrase “abolish the state” before.

I drone on about abolishing the state, yet I’m a statist. :lol: (Says the guy who whines about taxes and monopolies of violence. Now that’s hilarious.)

Nobody likes being told what to do. Even when it would save their life, either literally in a biological sense or fundamentally in a purpose and potential sense. It's a thankless job. One often rewarded with disdain or alienation and sometimes even death. But it has to be done.

What people don't get, especially good or at least moderately decent people, is the level of depravity some hold and will perform on others, individuals and wholesale, without the slightest care. With glee, even. As a normal, sane person in a well-structured and productive society, we often forget the horrors that occurred in its formation, horrors that can and most likely certainly will occur again without due vigilance. That's the point of society. Freedom of the body is simple. Freedom of mind however, especially with intellect and care for others, that's what even the grandest of utopias cannot guarantee. It's an ever shifting pendulum. One you do not want to be caught on the opposite end of.

That's because I'm attempting to remain at least realistic :D.

Often times talk of "the state" in relation to even socialism is muddy. For some "the state" is roads, military, police, courts, and everything else is excess -- the liberal state as an ideal. For others the post office is an example of socialism, even though it's funded by the capitalist mode of production -- taxation is somehow socialism even though the capitalists require the liberal state to enforce the norms of capital.

I think it's important to emphasize that it's really just the people around you who matter with respect to politics. In a way that's a radical idea that's certainly inspired by communism and anarchism: it's not the talking heads, the books, the ideas or ideals, or even the leaders of social organisms that matter as much as the people who show up.

All state systems are capitalist, the socialist ones included. I don't think the existence of one precludes the existence of others because any state that does not consider the production and management of capital is unimaginable. I avoid using that term as mucn as possible because it was a term of abuse invented by socialists and in its common use is essentially incoherent. But the increasing interventions into the social affairs of human beings proves to me that the state has a "social" rather than a "liberal" or "individualistic" tendency, and therefor socialism is the reigning ideology.

The state has never manifested as the liberal night-watchman, as far as I know, preferring to exploit and monopolize rather than protect. Instead, it increasingly expands its scope and power until finally it intervenes in all human activity. Communists promised us the state would just wither away but it became more and more totalitarian under their rule, as it invariably does. The teleology of each state is to capture society until both society and the state are indistinguishable. Notice how some can't help but conflate society and government as if they were one and the same.

There is a difference between a legitimate and an illegitimate authority. One's status as an official, or employment within a bureaucracy, is not good enough to justify the legitimacy of their own authority. It is for this reason that their job is thankless.

Society should be vigilant but delegating that vigilance to some job-holding bureaucrat, subject to the whims of a political class, is to be the opposite of vigilant.

There is a difference between a legitimate and an illegitimate authority. — NOS4A2

Surely. Through valiant and democratic means won through wars, civil and various other action both civilized and not. However. Much like the child who believes the parent disappears into oblivion in a simple game of "peek a boo", men can be fooled or perhaps incorrect, can they not?

One's status as an official, or employment within a bureaucracy, is not good enough to justify the legitimacy of their own authority. — NOS4A2

I want to dissect and unpack what this word "bureaucracy" means to you in intimate detail. Just to make sure we're on the same page here. There are no "unelected" officials absent of judges and magistrates. Perhaps a few others I fail to recollect. Police officers too. It's a bit complicated. Let me give you a principle example.

Say a man murders another man for believing he slept with his wife, when no such thing ever occurred. The judge sentences him to life in prison for murder. That murderer, is still a citizen. And in the off chance he has friends who are perhaps unhinged and want to run amok like animals, in enough numbers, they could perhaps vote to "un-elect" him by simply voting "for the other guy" thus defeating the democratic process of voting for someone for merit or desire but simply to "get rid of" someone you don't like. Do you see what I mean? Some positions in government are truly, as my old man would say "damn if you do, damn if you don't". You can't make everybody happy. Nor do some deserve to be. Can we agree on that?

This is the point of long term appointments to positions. Otherwise it just turns into a revolving door of inexperienced novices too afraid to lose their job/livelihood by dealing a difficult but necessary rulings, and before you know it, criminals walk the streets with impunity. Is that what you want? I thought you were on the side of necessary justice.

Beyond that, your own statement of "legitimate and [...] illegitimate authority" seems to substantiate this.

Society should be vigilant but delegating that vigilance to some job-holding bureaucrat, subject to the whims of a political class, is to be the opposite of vigilant. — NOS4A2

I want to play a little metaphor game with you, if you don't mind. Not so much a game but rather a direct analogy. Say a man or someone he cares about has a heart attack or serious physical injury. Now what if, right in the middle of being wheeled into a qualified and licensed brain surgeons operating room, I just jump in the way and start saying "Hey, surgery should not be monopolized by the medically educated class!" You'd throw me out the damn window. So think about that. We need qualified people for positions that effect life and society as a whole. How could you disagree with that?

What has been created by this half century of massive corporate propaganda is what's called "anti-politics". So that anything that goes wrong, you blame the government. Well okay, there's plenty to blame the government about, but the government is the one institution that people can change... the one institution that you can affect without institutional change. That's exactly why all the anger and fear has been directed at the government. The government has a defect - it's potentially democratic. Corporations have no defect - they're pure tyrannies. So therefore you want to keep corporations invisible, and focus all anger on the government. So if you don't like something — you know, your wages are going down, etc. — you blame the government. Not blame the guys in the Fortune 500, because you don't read the Fortune 500. You just read what they tell you in the newspapers... so you don't read about the dazzling profits and the stupendous glitz, and the wages going down and so on, all you know is that the bad government is doing something, so let's get mad at the government.

(Chomsky)

:chin:

Somehow and at some point people were convinced that voting was tantamount to democracy, that marking a piece of paper every few years constitutes the rule of the people. This is not any kind of rule of the people that I can employ in any seriousness, so I refuse to believe that since a man was nominally voted into power he has any legitimate authority over other people.

By bureaucracy I mean the state machinery and its employees, dependant as they are through the appropriation of other people’s labor and money. And we can agree that the appointment of these people will not make everyone happy.

There are no legitimate forms of government; no effective method of governance; not even the remotest possibility of an an administration that can organize society; no motivation for anyone to work, except to feed himself and protect his stuff. We'll just have to break up into armed gangs under warlords and fight it out for the last dregs of resources.