All governments are Mafias to some extent. That's what it means to have police. The difference is that we expect the government to leverage its Mafia-like power in a manner that best suits its citizens.

A big difference is that governments should be accountable to the people. Not all are, in which case they are indeed pretty much like a legitimised mafia.

It's the democratic basis that gives a government its legitimacy.

That seems like an unfair comparison. The govt has courts that can overturn it. Before trump we didn't have the whim on the executive.

It may make you feel good to blame the current guy but we've had the whim of the Executive since the beginning. The only things that has changed are a) the willingness to use it and b) the sheer number of places it can be used.

Obama ordered drone strikes on Americans. Reagan ran Iran-Contra. Kennedy tried to invade Cuba. FDR tried to grow the Supreme Court to 13.

A better approach would be for the federal government as a whole - yes, all three branches - to reign in their power so that there's less power to abuse. The odds of that are zero.

Constitution is built with the understanding that those odds are zero, and that gridlock is the natural tendency.

You only have to look at the behavior of prosecuting attorneys who are free to downgrade criminal charges as they see fit with predictable biases as a result.

Thanks Bob. Very helpful comment. If people live a fulfilling life and are taking care by the state when they hit a bad time or go through health problems, they are less likely to want to overthrow the state. This social net requires taxes. It’s a social net, not a racket.

I mean some really wealthy people seem to want to replace the government with autocratic royalist fiefdoms so I guess you may have a point in their eyes.