Governments are inherently immoral and illegitimate

First, I'm going to clarify a couple of issues about this topic. In my first post, I stated that there are some factors that assess whether governments are morally fit to rule. For one, there's the obtaining of power. A government, and the people within it, can become the authority through legal means/the people, force/violence/conspiring/illegality , or spiritual laws. An example of a government legally coming to power would be the Mayflower Compact, signed by English colonists to establish the framework of government in a land that is now the U.S.A. This way is morally acceptable because the settlers consented to conforming to the laws established by the document. For spiritual rationales, you can look at my previous post. Personally, I would fit violent and illegal acts under one category. (you can use you imagination to come up with an example) So far, it seems that the only one that makes a government immoral is the way of violence and such. But is it absolute? People argue that the English robbed the land of the Native Americans by force and that the means to which they achieved this goal was reprehensible. However, if looked from both a logical and historical perspective, the Native Americans were, actually, no different from the English in geopolitical conflicts. Before the pilgrims came, the lands of North America were already being fought over among warring tribes. These people slaughtered one another constantly for territory and power. How is this any different from the English? The pilgrims were just like any other tribe, just more technologically advanced and different in appearance. There's also the conflict during the Revolutionary War. In order to gain independence as a new republic, the colonists fought against the British and won. Although they used violence, they did so to found a government that valued principles of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Evidently, the origins of a government cannot be the only factor in judging the moral quality of a government. In addition, there is, like you've indicated, the approval of the people. If the people are in their right mind and support the system of government as well as the people within the government out of their own free will,(for certain forms of governments, that is) then it is both morally and lawfully acceptable for a government to rule. In the U.S. the legitimacy of a governed is determined primarily by the people. Should the government not function in accordance to the view of the American people, opposition is permitted. As the Declaration of Independence says, governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed. Thus if the mass of the people felt the need to break the existing Constitution & create a new form of government, the right to do that inheres in the mass of the people themselves. The US Constitution is not self-justifying so no reference to the Constitution is required. In Nazi Germany, people didn't have this right, due to the Nazi party being a totalitarian regime. They didn't even have drive to rebel because they were deceived by false propaganda. There are governments that are mutualistic with their people , and there are governments that disregard the voice of the people. The ability, and therefore possibility, of a people to oppose the government lies in the conventions of a specific government, and NOT governments overall. Governments with characteristics that are best for everyone are just and should exist. Those that don't are immoral and should be condemned. It's absurd to attack ALL governments. Governments can ensure that people aren't victims of violence and other atrocities in broad daylight. Governments can protect people from invasions and other foreign threats. Governments can establish environments suitable for economies to thrive, so that people can get food easily rather than working on the fields to eat. Governments can give people a sense of order, peace, purpose, and belonging. If you want to live in anarchism, go to Somalia or Antarctica. In response to your claim that governments don't have the right to rule people, I say that they can have the right if it's given by the people, just as long as the government stays in line. If they don't, their right can be revoked. But of course, that depends on that system of government. Which is why you can't condemn all governments.