Ok so for me the question is unclear.
The definition of government goes.
a group of people with the authority to govern a country or state; a particular ministry in office.
Let me preempt the query of the word authority more than one dictionary list power in its definition.
So at its simplest a government legitimacy is just a question of power.
This is true for all governments, military dictatorships, monarchies, democracy, communism.
Democracy as a method of government is an extention of the might is right principle.
Where a government acts in a way that you feel exceeds their mandate you have a choice fight to change it or accept that inaction in this case is consent.
All governments exist by the will of the people
i disagree with your last comment, history tells us that government frequently terminates any challenge to it's supremacy - look at Tienanmen Square incident, thousands killed and thousands hunted down after the protests and disappeared. i do not believe the people gave consent. i have no say, and the people have no say as to if we want government or not. Government existed a long time before i was born and will specifically target me if i step out of line. Only 54% of eligible people voted in America, How many would vote to have government totally dissolved if it was an option?
If a lion wants to eat you and you lay down and let it it has your consent but if a lion wants to eat you and you fight you may loose and it may still eat you but it does so without your consent.
Nothing in life is any different. I think it will be the fifth time I have said this on a post by @wwf but you have no rights, I don't mean this in a the government is bad and has stolen them sense I mean it in a fact of nature sense.
Coercion does not remove will if a man puts a gun to you head and says to kill another man or you die in his place you have a choice decide that his life is worth less than yours and shoot him or decide that thou shalt not kill if a commandment worth dying for.
Same principal with the government they make or try to enforce a rule that you don't like or try to coerce you by power of they authority you have a choice in the case of our Australian government you can change your vote, speak vocally and publicly and incite others to your cause, leave, or resist the system and revolt.
If the problem is so big that you think it needs radical change but you choose not to because of coercion or threat you have made your choice and decided that the ideology is not worth dying for.
I'm sorry but i do not understand most of your reply based on simple logic. If i have no right to life and a lion wants to eat me, then i would therefore have to let the lion eat me. In a nature sense, then i would kill and eat the lion. i disagree that i have no rights,# my rights end where yours begin. #
If i was ever placed in a situation to kill or die, i would kill. I may be the one that pulled the trigger but i would not be responsible for the death.
i don't vote despite being threatened with court, and i publicly support an anarchistic / anti- government view, i don't pay income tax and actively resist all government intrusion into my private affairs. (i have a no trespassing sign posted that removes implied rights of access to my property and clearly states that government officials will be forcibly removed if they refuse to leave when asked.)
You cannot fight a government that consists of people that have no clue what they are doing. They are following a system that is working as intended. If all government people were removed from office and replaced, nothing would change. The system remains in place. The only solution is to educate people in the truth as @wwf is doing. If people no longer believe in government, it has no legitimacy.
Apologies I usually go further in my explanation of people having no rights.
when I say you have no rights I mean none of those pretty little social rights like freedom, liberty, happiness, freedom of religion all those are privileges of society the only fundamental rights you have are those you can hold. Nature doesn't give a crap about your right to life or private property. the tiger cares that he is hungry.
The only rights you have are those you can hold. Can you defend your life? can you protect your freedom? can you hold your property against threat.
As for not being responsible for killing a man under duress pretty much all reasonable people would absolve you of guilt but being free of guilt this does not mean you don't bear the responsibility of your choice.
As for signs on your private property claiming total ownership off you land this seams at odds with your redistribution of the land. If Australia went anarchist tomorrow as wished to redistribute your land and resources would you take those signs down?
I think what you are suggesting is that you feel intimidated by the mob as the mob (majority) dictates what you can or cannot do. The government is more than happy to engage in violence, coercion or force to make it happen. But we are also dealing with covert manipulations of the majority to use it in order to direct the will of the people. So we are not dealing with conscious consent any more. We are dealing with unconscious manipulations by the few power hungry people who have learned how to direct and manipulate the power of the masses. So does even though the consent of the people exists, is it still legitimate even though it is manipulated by others or completely unconscious?
It's not that i'm intimidated, it's disappointing that the majority continually listen to the fake news and media and agree with the removal of their private rights. This pushes my person further into servitude. As the majority believe i am a person, it becomes harder and harder to be a man. Here in South Australia, the police do not require probable cause and they have open warrants that are filled in after the fact. If you try and educate someone in the truth, when the penny drops and they realise that what you are saying is true, they become angry. To quote Cypher from the "Matrix","Ignorance is bliss". Legitimacy must come from having full disclosure of the facts and the government will not disclose the facts for they will lose all control and the courts will maintain that control by enforcing the lie.