We as individuals don't have a say in how the state works in any meaningful way. There is absolutely no difference, in practice or theory, between a "criminal" busting down my door or a "DEA agent" busting down my door. The fact that >50% of society supposedly approves of the "DEA agent" is no consolation and certainly no justification to the victim.

You can vote, and that is proportionally meaningful. Want more say, convince more people to agree with you.

You have zero say about anything criminals do.

There is a vast difference.

That's simply not true. The odds of my own actions being able to prevent or interrupt a common criminal are vastly higher than the odds of a single vote affecting the outcome of any but the smallest local election.

Again, proportions simply do not matter to the victim of violence. Like I said, if DEA agent busts down my door and shoots me, it is absolutely no consolation or justification that >50% of voters approve of drug prohibition. If you propose the question "is it okay for a robber to take 30% of my paycheck as long as 51% of my community is okay with it?" most people will say "of course not!," but if you propose the exact same question, but with "a robber" to "the government," most people will say "yes of course that's okay."

> The odds of my own actions being able to prevent or interrupt a common criminal are vastly higher than the odds of a single vote affecting the outcome of any but the smallest local election.

I'm not talking about a crime; I'm talking about government rule vs warlord rule. And the issue is which most people prefer, not which allows you a better chance to disobey.

> Again, proportions simply do not matter to the victim of violence. Like I said, if DEA agent busts down my door and shoots me, it is absolutely no consolation or justification that >50% of voters approve of drug prohibition.

It absolutely is consolation and justification for the majority of people who support that policy. You might not like it; but individual liberty is not unlimited and the will of society, right or wrong, beats the pants off any other form of government we've found.

> If you propose the question "is it okay for a robber to take 30% of my paycheck as long as 51% of my community is okay with it?" most people will say "of course not!," but if you propose the exact same question, but with "a robber" to "the government," most people will say "yes of course that's okay."

The robber is taking something without giving something back; the government is taking their share of your wages for services rendered to you as a citizen. Completely different situations.

> It absolutely is consolation and justification for the majority of people who support that policy.

Yes, but not for the victim of the policy. Slavery used to be approved by the vast majority of society.

> You might not like it; but individual liberty is not unlimited and the will of society, right or wrong, beats the pants off any other form of government we've found.

I don't like it, and I don't want to replace it with another form of government. My whole point in this thread has been that government actions are indistinguishable from actions which are widely accepted to be crimes, except that government has convinced society that its actions are acceptable.

> The robber is taking something without giving something back; the government is taking their share of your wages for services rendered to you as a citizen. Completely different situations.

Fine then, change my analogy to a robber that takes 30% of your paycheck, uses part of it to blow up some people in other countries, part of it to feed the poor, part of it to pay prison companies to contain nonviolent criminals, and part of it to build some roads.

> except that government has convinced society that its actions are acceptable.

Government is society, we are our government, it is not some entity that has tricked everyone. It does what it does because open your eyes and look around, people want it doing those things.

But you're still just saying that violence is fine as long as >50% of society approves of it. And that's being gracious, since there's no reason to actually believe that >50% of society approves of the actions of the government.

Violence is a natural and inevitable human trait, and is not necessarily wrong. There are times when it is OK, and is even the right thing to do. What better way to determine what those times are than democratically?