Bear with me for a second, but the purpose of the police and justice system is not to prevent crime. These systems are actually there to prevent vigilante justice, which invariably leads to innocents being killed to appease the mob (a la witch trials).
By having law and order in place, the people who might take justice into their own hands are now instead pacified by the notion that those who commit crimes will receive their due punishment. Is the system perfect? Hell no. But it's far better than the alternative.
Something else I want to point out is that this system is clearly working. Right now, humanity as a whole is the least violent it has been in all of history. There is plenty of data to support that your chance of being killed by another human is dozens of times lower than it would have been hundreds of years ago. And this is not just in developed nations, but all across the world.
It's easy to feel like violence is increasing, but that's only because society is becoming more and more attuned to the immorality of hurting others. We are now much more cooperative as a species than we once were. This, ironically, means that even the lower level of violence we witness in the world now is enough to make us feel repulsed.
People obviously cannot delegate rights they do not have themselves.
Here is but one of a LARGE number of examples i can & will destroy your childish, immoral argument for a ruling class to be in place, with, as you are pathetically attempting to justify giving some people rights that others do not have, to exploit. And then expect them to do something OTHER than continually commit perjury to sustain those rights, by lying to, and convincing you and as many others as they can, that they do, in fact have your best interests put forth (rolls eyes; grow up) (which they always have and will), while merely exploiting the situation to their benefit (which they always have and will).
If you do not have the right to rob your neighbor on your own, then you cannot possibly give such a right to some public official. Nor can anyone else. No election, no constitution, no political process, can make robbery & extortion, moral and righteous, even if politicians first do a bunch of complicated pseudo-religious rituals, & then call the robbery law & taxation.
Newsflash: You, me, or any number of individuals agreeing to such childish immorality, can NOT legitimately delegate rights they don't have. This is NOT rocket science. It's pretty freaking basic logic. (rolls eyes, yet again) And no offense, don't take this personal, because it is in no way, meant in such a way.
It don't matter HOW many billions of people agree with the lie you are attempting to sell. Try this, honestly ask yourself these 5 questions about government, and your belief in government:
--Is there any means by which any number of individuals can delegate to someone else the moral right to do something which none of the individuals have the moral right to do themselves?
--Do those who wield political power (presidents, legislators, etc.) have the moral right to do things which other people do not have the moral right to do? If so, from whom and how did they acquire such a right?
--Is there any process (e.g., constitutions, elections, legislation) by which human beings can transform an immoral act into a moral act (without changing the act itself)?
--When law-makers and law-enforcers use coercion and force in the name of law and government, do they bear the same responsibility for their actions that anyone else would who did the same thing on his own?
--When there is a conflict between an individual's own moral conscience, and the commands of a political authority, is the individual morally obligated to do what he personally views as wrong in order to "obey the law"?
Damn dude, you were a tad more incendiary than necessary but I guess I'll bite. Since you obviously have some very polarized views about the morality of the state or 'the man' I'm not going to try to discuss from that angle. We could go back and forth all day about morality until we're blue in the face and we'd get nowhere.
Let's instead look at it from more of a game theory point of view. What exactly are the incentives for having a hierarchy of people trusted with decision making (i.e. authority)? Well, we'll have to start by imagining a world in which there is no government whatsoever. Every man, woman, and child is now looking out for him/herself. The most obvious bonds that would first form are those who share your blood. This should be obvious to you, as looking out for your family is equivalent to looking out for yourself. We're hardwired to do so.
So we have a situation where there are families that are all interacting in the wild, so to speak. Maybe for a little while, families will avoid each other and just make sure that they have enough to provide for themselves. Except sooner or later, someone is going to come up with the bright idea that they can actually save themselves a lot of time and effort by finding another family with a lot of resources, but less firepower, and simply take their resources by force.
This isn't exactly a novel concept, pretty much anyone who can do so will do so. Sooner or later, certain families are going to realize that they increase their chances of surviving an attack or of subjugating another family if they've got help from someone else (i.e 2 vs 1). Thus, alliances are born. The first people to start forming alliances are the ones who will be able to grow/protect their resources and therefore pass their genetic material on for another generation. Of course this logic can be extended the larger such alliances grow. This is NOT rocket science. These are pretty freaking basic evolutionary principles.
Moral of the story: governments today don't exist because 'the man' wants to keep you down, or whatever fucked up ideas you've got about it. Governments exist precisely because a) people benefit from their existence, b) if they didn't exist they'd end up forming again slowly over time, and c) the average person actually wants to be led in exchange for security.
It doesn't matter if you bite or not. You can NOT legitimately delegate rights you don't have. Not one of you agreeing to it, or 74 billion of you agreeing that it magically becomes morality, because you decide it does, changes it from immorality, to morality. Stop trying to justify immorality. Your childish views of moral relativism, are not mature (emotionally or intellectually, in ANY way). Consenting FOR other people is not moral or upstanding in ANY way.
And by the way, i hardly consider sound logic that is actually NOT attempting to sway with fallacies like you are (appeals to tradition, emotion, ignorance, etc) polarizing. Try again.
This is EXTREMELY basic logic we're talking about here, man. Seriously. Imperfect humans ruling over other imperfect humans? Really? At least present an argument that does not expose itself (rolls eyes). This a self-contradiction, and blatantly so. It does not actually make any sense, in practical terms, in evidence, or in logic. And pathetic appeals to tradition, emotion, and ignorance, etc, (as well as whatever other fallacies you attempt to sway with) are NOT hiding the fact that your whole argument exposes itself, as i just pointed out. (rolls eyes, yet again)
Forgive the brief answer, but i'm running late for work here. Leave some more moral relativistic justifications for immorality and giving some people rights that others do not have (pretty disgusting. And YES, it is VERY childish), and when i get off work this evening, i'll more thoroughly destroy your grade school logic and immorality. You scientism worshiping freaks are more close minded, than religious zealots. Pathetic