"To argue for an end of government authority, you don't need to propose it's replacement, only that it is wrong; like slavery was wrong."
In the first place there must be a controversy for there to be an argument. One side is offensive, or antagonistic, and the other side is defensive.
In the second place the "need to propose it's replacement" becomes a need when the aggressor, protagonist, is effectively creating slavery.
If there is no "need to propose it's replacement" there will be enslavement.
In the third place your words confess that there are obvious reasons for the "need to propose it's replacement" as history proves how well crime pays when there is no effective defense against it. Just because the criminals claim to be the defenders does not prove that they are not, in all actual fact, the offending protagonists.
"If you were forced to live under the mafia, or a cartel, you may not choose to oppose the cartel, which could get you killed or imprisoned. But at least explain to everyone why the mafia is wrong!"
According to who?
The willing tax payers?
The willing extortion fee providers?
"Society in every state is a blessing, but Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one: for when we suffer, or are exposed to the same miseries BY A GOVERNMENT, which we might expect in a country WITHOUT GOVERNMENT, our calamity is heightened by reflecting that we furnish the means by which we suffer."
No sooner than the old slave masters were driven out the new slave masters were plotting to take back the power of IMMORAL enslavement of the targeted victims.
"One party, whose object and wish it was to abolish and annihilate all State governments, and to bring forward one general government, over this extensive continent, of monarchical nature, under certain restrictions and limitations. Those who openly avowed this sentiment were, it is true, but few; yet it is equally true, Sir, that there were a considerable number, who did not openly avow it, who were by myself, and many others of the convention, considered as being in reality favorers of that sentiment; and, acting upon those principles, covertly endeavoring to carry into effect what they well knew openly and avowedly could not be accomplished."
What happens when the victims are led to believe that there is no "ned to propose it's replacement"?
No need for this:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."
"Mr. President it is natural to man to indulge in the illusions of hope. We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth - and listen to the song of the siren till she transforms us into beasts. Is this the part of wise men engaged in a great and arduous struggle for liberty? Are we disposed to be of the number of those who, having eyes, see not, and having ears, hear not, the things which so nearly concern their temporal salvation? For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst and to provide for it."
Want DP delivered to your inbox daily? Subscribe here: