Governments are inherently immoral and illegitimate

"Furthermore, if you believe that the people being oppressed by the Nazis, or any other tyrannical regime for that matter, had the right to resist the imposition of those laws, then you can't also claim that people give their governments legitimacy, because that is to claim that the Nazis had the right to enforce their immoral laws because they obtained power through democratic elections." (I admire your style of debating. You post your arguments with conviction and your content is very straightforward. It's not anecdotal like mines, but quick to the point.) My position is that governments are not innately immoral and illegitimate. And I'm going to stress again that you are making too big of a generalization out of one system of government. The Nazi regime was a bad government. And the moral quality as well as the legitimacy of that government were produced out of properties, conventions, and existing circumstances that revolved around its people, its nation's history, and the system itself. Looking at the origins of the Nazis, it is concluded that their rise to power, however legal it may seem, was not a succession, but rather a conniving usurpation of position in 20th century Germany. The Nazi party platform was composed of REMOVAL OF THE WEIMAR REPUBLIC(the already existing government) , rejection of the terms of the Treaty of Versailles, radical antisemitism, and anti-Bolshevism. And get this, although the Nazis won the greatest share of the popular vote in the two Reichstag general elections of 1932, they did not have a majority and therefore Hitler led a short-lived coalition government formed with the German National People's Party. Under pressure from politicians, industrialists, and the business community, President Paul von Hindenburg appointed Hitler as Chancellor of Germany on 30 January 1933. This event is known as the "Seizure of Power". In the following months, the NSDAP used a process termed Gleichschaltung ("co-ordination") to bring all aspects of life under control of the party. All civilian organizations had their leadership replaced with Nazi sympathizers or party members; these civic organizations either merged with the Nazi Party or faced being closed down. By June 1933, the only organizations not in the control of the NSDAP were the army and the churches. There's also the Reichtag Fire. Hitler deemed the incident a Communist uprising, that it was a sign of commies trying to take over. But in truth, the arsonist, though a confirmed communist, was working completely by himself. With exaggerated propaganda and gangster-like maneuvers through the German government, the Nazis started an entirely new reign, a new government. And because this was an entirely new government, the Nazis established new laws and they accompanied those laws with policies that stopped German people from opposing those laws. The act of people opposing whatever it is about their government does not automatically mean that they also deny the legitimacy of their government. This issue is RELATIVE to each government. For example, in America, people DO have the power to oppose their government. In the Bill of Rights, citizens have freedom of speech, press, petition, and assembly. In other words, people can protest the government ( so long as it was civilized ) without facing oppression and hostility. And unless the U.S. government changes the core doctrine that makes it the U.S. government (Declaration of Independence, Constitution), then it cannot take away those rights from the people. "By its very nature and definition, a government can never be on an even playing field with those it governs, and this is very simple to demonstrate" Your implying that I claim people under a government can have the same degree of influence and power as the ones in the government. That is not what I was trying to convey. I was stating that there are government that establish a healthy relationship with its people, and there have been governments in the past that did the same. This relationship is one in which both groups benefit. The people do their part by providing a population necessary for enlistment, paying taxes, obeying laws, etc. And in return, the government protects the people, provide programs for the people like hospitals,libraries, and so on. "In addition, the concept of government is about obedience to those in power who have this political authority. This is why I refer to the rest of the people as subjects: they have to obey whatever laws and orders are declared by the politicians and others with power." You make this phenomenon sound like such a bad thing lol. The authority of a government, and government altogether, exist to observe/enforce the collective moral standards of all the people. For example, the majority of the people think stabbing a guy for no reason is a crime that ought to be punished. The government is there to comply with the people's request. In the case of Nazi Germany, it is truly despicable for those laws to be accepted. And, yes, the majority of the German population were technically responsible. But you can't really blame them; even before Hitler became dictator, he was already twisting the mind of the German people, make to hate Jews out of some false accusation. If the people were in their right mind, then maybe things would have been different. "You don't need governments for this type of organization to occur. People cooperate through their own free will with others to achieve many different goals all the time." Give me one place on Earth where you can go to a supermarket or get box crates full of Nutella without the presence of a sophisticated government. Don't lose hope about the voting period. Maybe you'll win ;)