Far be it from me to defend the United States Congress, but the two things--a low approval rating combined with a high reelection rate--are often presented as evidence for corruption.

Corrupt though they may be, it's a faulty measure--the approval rating is for all of Congress. Most Americans by default hate half of congress--the half in the opposing party--and disapprove of many of their own members.

Put another way, the approval rating has Bostonians evaluating congressmen from Houston, but most people end up reelecting their own congressman. "The problem isn't my congresswoman, it's the other idiots," etc.

There are other, unfortunate reasons for that, but that's a separate point.

People keep complaining about the "government monopoly on violence." What other group would you prefer to have a monopoly on violence? If the government doesn't enforce a monopoly, then invariably someone else will, in the process becoming the new government; or else two or more groups will actively dispute it, a condition commonly known as "war."

The people. Governments can be illegitimate, e.g. not derive from the consent of the people, in which case government monopoly on violence yields oppression.

Violent revolutions are sometimes necessary in the course of human events. Without the people having the capacity to wage war on their government -- that is, the capacity for violence via the right to bear arms -- such revolutions are not possible.