If you provide a system that can be taken over by oligarchs, they will eventually take it over. As soon as the smallest minority, one person, is being subjected against their will by others, it is a tyrannical system that needs to be rejected.
The absolute horrors it has committed far outweigh the small potential benefits people may suggest it has provided. We don't need to have our property stolen. We do not need licenses to do what we wish to do as long as it harms no other person by doing it. We do not need mass murder to secure resources and defend failed economic systems.
Oligarchs need us to have those things though to maintain their power.
You are totally missing my point. We agree completely. Except on one point. Burning the system down is not the solution. Displacing it with a better one is.
I never said I was in favor of burning it down. The only way I would go that far is if they moved to take away military style rifles. Then there would be a hot revolution.
I think we are in more agreement than you realize... but IMO a world without government is a fantasy. One to be striven for, but a fantasy nonetheless. Also a primary point I am trying to make is we must avoid the "hot revolution" if at all possible because those are the favorite tools of the elite to usher in their Hegelian dialectic. Then in the end who suffers most and at best keeps their previous status? The people. This is why I argue for displacing bad systems instead of overturning them. Let the bad systems tear themselves down from lack of sustenance while the good systems grow under their own momentum. Those systems can become a liability for the controllers instead of us while they try to cling to them.
I like your style finnian!