And... The system should be viewed as illegitimate (read: as a system to be peacefully turned to dust or forever changed) by those who find deep ethical fault

And... The system should be viewed as illegitimate (read: as a system to be peacefully turned to dust or forever changed) by those who find deep ethical fault with it. You're alluding to conscientious objectors negatively. They are one of the few groups of people who have ever pushed progress through the ages on this planet. Of course, you're entitled to love the status quo to the point of making it legitimate in your mind every step it takes. Those who ethically disagree with the current oligarchical model for issuing laws that govern the fate of the world do, indeed, disagree. I view "majoritarian consensus," which the US doesn't actually have, as only a small step above monarchy. It's a very low bar to set for laws of any serious consequence. To be so presumptuous and selfish as to give one small body the right to govern over vast regions of territory would have to, on an ethical level, require approaching systems models that use near full consensus. Disagreement is the only necessary factor for a person wanting to delegitimize something mentally. In the mind of an objector, there is no more legitimacy in a dictator's brutality, or in an oligarchical republic's brutality (e.g. imprisonment for nonviolent crimes), other than the reality of the sword that backs the decree. Lest the world become lemmings, may people continue to find illegitimacy as they search their minds and hearts.