Governments have the legal right to use force against individuals. Individuals, and individuals that band together into organizations, have no such right.
First, there aren't many large scale bands of individuals that don't also obtain special privileges from the government (aka incorporating).
Second, while these organizations theoretically "have no such right", there are plenty of instances where they do directly wield force yet escape justice, abuse the force-wielding functions of government to harm people, or use their concentrated power to buy off parts of the government (principle agent problem). Insisting that these are ultimately government problems because a perfect minimalist government would not succumb is highly wishful thinking. It's falling into the classic political trap of addressing one half the problem while drumming up full-speed-ahead support for the other half.
It's rather difficult to defend yourself against an organization that can use it's wealth and influence to leverage the government to make it a crime to fight against them, or to make it so expensive to compete that unless you're already rich you cannot, or to sick FBI or police or military on you.
A company would not be nearly so dangerous if it could not in turn influence the government to destroy you. It is much cheaper to give campaign donations to a US senator and then hand him laws to pass or ask for subsidies or for no-bid government contracts than is it to actually compete in an open market where you have to provide a better service for a better price than everyone else.
I find it amazing that people clamor for the government to protect them and yet day after day we see examples of the government crushing the helpless, confiscating their property, throwing flash bangs at their children, torturing them, or just straight up murdering them, and all without consequence, at most you get a pretty speech than it s back to business as usual handing out billions of tax payer wealth so companies can give some of drippings back to our 'elected' representatives.
And when you bring this up, what do people say? They tell you it's just bad luck, there really are some good people in government, try contacting your your congress critter, try getting into public office. The definition of insanity is to repeat the same action over and over again and expect a different result.
Both of which rely on and aggressively use (via bribes) the government's legal right to use force against individuals as their means to implement their policies.
That's a nice line, but it's always more complicated than that. Do the actions of one town's government speak for the entire county, state, or country? Do the actions of the federal government speak for each state, county, or town?
What I'm saying is that you cannot, across all sectors, in all areas, in all ways, claim that government, every piece of it, has jumped the proverbial shark.
When numerous examples can be found of abuse by government at the township, county, state, and federal levels what else can you say besides the parent comment? Is your defense the usual 'few bad apples' argument because at this point the orchard is rotten and crawling with worms.
It would be humorous except non-government, non-corporate individuals have no way to redress grievances.
You have several ways to address grievances. You can speak to your local representatives. Write to the local press. Contact your State and National Representatives, and then contact them again when a staffer takes your call the first time. Write letters, e-mails, radio ads, television interviews, poems, songs, plant trees in the shape of your own face, you can use the power of hate on 4chan or the hug of death from Reddit.
You can protest, is what I'm saying.
I'm not saying that a few bad apples spoil the bunch. What I said was that it isn't true that all parts of every government office are abusive. I implied that issues in Idaho's state government aren't the same as those in Miami's Precinct Alderman's offices, and those are different than those in Washington, D.C.
Do you have a designated freespeech zone for me to use?
Where shall I gather the money to run radio ads? You actually believe planting trees is a way to address grievances?
My state and national representative will not care one iota for my opinion if it isn't attached to either A: a large check or B: a large constituency.
I wrote there are numerous examples of government abuse on all levels, how is it then not true that every government office is abusive? Yes, perhaps this particular ranger in this particular state park is clean as a whistle -- in our orchard of rotten apples there are still a few good ones if you pick through the garbage.
Freespeech zone: nope, not sure how that's relevant.
Radio: any type of fundraising that you believe would work, or try to get free air time on local broadcasts or regional programs. It helps if you have an interesting topic to talk about.
Trees: If it gets your message across, yes. It would be a good news story.
"My state and national representative will not care one iota for my opinion if it isn't attached to either A: a large check or B: a large constituency."
Have you ever tried? This is the kind of statement made by someone who has nothing but second- and third-hand knowledge of the process, usually garnered through biased news organizations (they all are).
My experience has been that very few citizens are involved in politics as lobbying goes. I'm convinced that if every private citizen got as involved in the actual process as they are in complaining, actual, paid lobbyists would be driven out of business. They only speak for us because we do not speak for ourselves.
I have successfully lobbied my state representative. I wrote to the local paper, I arranged an interview with compelling stories for local television. I made a nuisance out of myself until I got airtime on local radio stations. I made such a stink that my federal representatives even called me to discuss the issue and ask for my thoughts (albeit not too much in depth). I spoke for myself, because the people who were doing it full time didn't have my best interests at heart.
But, I felt passionately about the topic. You're right, it's easier with money, but you can also spend time and energy for nearly as good of a return. Not everyone has these things to spare, and I appreciate that (I was lobbying against cuts to low-income early childhood in my area; the exact kind of people who have neither time, money, nor energy to fight the fight). But, if it's something you truly feel is right, just, and good, you'll figure out how to make it happen.
Finally, to bring it back around to the original argument; it may be that several government entities are abusive. It is probably true that a majority are corrupt. But to say that ---all-- government is abusive or corrupt is just ridiculous. Those type of arguments add nothing to the conversation other than noise.
