As opposed to the state?

Simply add a cost to prosecutions that fail, with it going towards the winner.

> with it going towards the winner.

The cops will abuse the shit out of that. That gives them a monetary incentive to botch investigations when their buddies are involved.

Hence the:

>There should be nothing that the executive branch does in terms of investigation and prosecution, that the average citizen should be legally barred from doing.

>This includes prosecuting crimes in criminal court, requesting and enforcing warrants, and so on.

>The only difference between an average citizen and the government employees doing these things should be that the government employes are being paid to do these things as a full time job.

If the cops botch their investigations... Well there's nothing stopping anyone else from conducting their own. Might as well conduct one into the cops botching of the investigation too.

What makes you think someone prosecuting a police officer would rely on the police investigating the officer?

they already have an incentive to botch investigations when their buddies are involved. Maybe this makes the incentive slightly greater but you shouldn’t rely on cops to investigate their buddies anyway

> As opposed to the state?

Ok, so you consider the state to be equivalent to sovereign citizens?

Also, how about investigations that never go to a prosecution? It’s pretty simple to harass someone that way.

Yes?

I dont see why the state should be considered special. Ultimately it is supposed to work for the people, is it not? It's powers are delegated to it by the people.

I dont see "only the state should have the right to harass people" as a legitimate argument.

If it's simple to harass someone that way, then making it available to everyone will increase the need to fix a broken system where people can be arbitrarily harassed.

The sovereign citizens aren’t elected.

> If it's simple to harass someone that way, then making it available to everyone will increase the need to fix a broken system where people can be arbitrarily harassed.

Making a broken system worse does increase the need to fix it, but it doesn’t mean it gets fixed, it just means we have a worse need.

What does being elected or not have to do with it? Violent mobs also have democratic legitimacy, but somehow I doubt you'll think they should have a right to harass you.

And on the contrary, it is by making the situation unbearable for everyone that popular and political will to change a broken system is created.

The worst thing that can happen is for an injustice to be prolonged just because it only affects a select group of people that those in power dislike.

> Violent mobs also have democratic legitimacy,

No they don’t.

> And on the contrary, it is by making the situation unbearable for everyone that popular and political will to change a broken system is created.

When has that ever worked?