Speaking from a United States of America Governmental Perspective...
As an individual, you are only able to vote for the individuals in your state, and the President (VP is no longer a voted-in position; I'd like to see that law change back to what it was previously, but that's neither here nor there).
Wait, where was I? Ah, yes... As an individual, you vote for representatives in your state and some at the national level. This means that you only control as many as 2 votes in the Senate and 1 House of Representatives Vote for your District Representative. Of course, there are more local members of government who you vote for as well, but for the National Level, this is what is in your control.
So do I have the right to complain about the individuals who I directly elected into office? Yes.
Why?
Because I voted them in to perform a purpose based on their indicated values and platform that they ran on. If they do not adhere to those values or their platform, I am allowed to complain. I am also obligated (if I complain) that I vote for a new representative at the next election period. This is part of the reason why Terms were implemented by our founders.
Moving on to your questions... Simply put, I'm not going to answer them directly.
You've asked pointed questions in order to illicit a specific response that validates your opinion. I just can't bring myself to respond to that type of manipulation. Also, it seems like you had those questions pre-written; you responded fairly quickly with a somewhat lengthy and well-structured response.
The hypocrisy of government that you speak of is granted to the government by those willing to do nothing. So by not voting, you're willfully providing power to those who do not deserve it and are not representing the public.
If we had a larger portion of the population voting and participating in the US government, the foundation the US government is built upon has solid footing and provides ample ability for the people to be represented.
On the other hand, the same foundations also provide corrupt and self-serving individuals with a powerful platform to stand on and exploit.
Did you know that in the last US Presidential Election [2016] (where the country sees the highest voting percentage of any other US election), only approximately 60% of eligible voters actually voted in the election? That means approximately 40% of eligible voters abstained from such a "divisive" and "controversial" election.
Now imagine if those 40% all voted for a 3rd party candidate. Probably a bit extreme of an assumption, but if they didn't vote for either individual, what's to say they wouldn't vote for the 3rd party candidate? How do you think the country would respond to an election where it was proven a 3rd party candidate could win enough votes to actually make changes in the government? It's unlikely that the 3rd party candidate would get voted in the first time -- people will stick to what they know (Democrat / Republican), at least until they see that the possibility of another party / candidate is a viable option.
TL; DR;
Participation is the only way to have any right to complain. You either voted for someone who lost and can complain that "your candidate would have done better." Or you voted for someone who won, lied about their intentions, and acted contrary to what you voted them in for, and you can complain that "this guy is a liar and won't last another term."
Complaining because "the system is broken", when you're not actually using the system to begin with, or the system is not being used for its intended purposes, is improper.
You cannot ask a group of people to commit violence in your name and call it moral.
At least in the US, this is not as common of a practice. Sure, there are US leaders who have sent American Soldiers to go out and fight some war for political reasons and mask it as some moral reason, but most of the time (recently) American Soldiers haven't been [publicly] deployed with the purpose of immoral violence.
Nice response. I appreciate you taking the time. I was disappointed you felt that the questions were pointed as they are straightforward ethical questions about morality and the delegation of rights.
I'm assuming that you didn't like your answers to them as they contradict your beliefs but that's ok, I hope I at least planted a seed.
I'm still not sure you grasped my post based on your last response and I'm not convinced you understand what I mean commiting violence in your name. Let me clarify: by voting for a party/individual, you are giving them the authority to make decisions not just on your behalf but on the behalf of your fellow countrymen. Say, for example, you voted for someone on their promise to indroduce a new tax. They gain power and them they force your neighbour to pay this additional tax. What is the government law backed up with? Force. If your neighbour refuses to pay the new tax he will have violence committed against him by putting him in a cage or if he resists that, with guns.
Coercion is a form of violence. Government is coercive by its nature.
I suspect we will have to agree to disagree but I hope you can see clearer the point of view someone who does not want a group of people making his life decisions. I am perfectly capable with making my own decisions! Have a great day.
Ok, so I am gathering your point of view a bit more clearly now. You will likely fit in well here. There are plenty of other anarchists here.
While I don't believe in the need of government, overall, the idea of government is not something that I disagree with. There are too many people who have their own levels of morality that are much lower than yours and mine. As such, those individuals need to be dealt with "by force" more often than not.
Do you believe that a person should be allowed to murder whoever they please just because they feel that way? What if someone felt slighted, but they were not physically injured, someone simply made them feel like less of a person, and responded by killing the person who made them feel like less of a person. Is that justified?
There are two sides to a coin and there is always a balance of power that needs to be maintained. You seem to be discussing a theoretical world; although one can validly argue that the "war on drugs" has disproportionately imprisoned black males, some of which were for non-violent and minor offenses. And there are other examples along the same lines where single groups were selected to be less desirable and therefore were targeted by a law or governmental policy.
I personally am more responsible (in general) than 90% (or more) of the people who I know. However, from the list of people who I know and may be less personally responsible (in general), who are more capable and experienced in areas that my skills are lacking. I am not better than these other individuals and they are not better than me.
..Where am I going with this...
The whole idea of government, in my opinion, is to provide general "legal" (as opposed to moral) guidelines for SOCIETY. Society is an ugly place. Especially modern society. Everyone is out to make the world a better place for themselves. That type of environment is not ideal for the continuation of modern existence.
In order to advance our species, we created this modern society with rules and boundaries. Are all of the boundaries and rules the right ones? Probably not. Do most of them point us in the right direction? So far, so good. You really need to look at this from a longer term view than current society. Short term changes are just that, short-term. Long Term Goals and Achievements are the focus.
Now, what does long-term mean? 10 years? .. 20? .. 50? I'd say closer to 100 years. If we compare our society today vs 100 years ago, which is better? If we compare 100 years ago with 200 years ago.. again, which is better?
How did we get to where we are today? We were led by our rules and guidelines that were implemented by governments around the world.
Could we be in a better place with a different form of government and leadership? Most likely.
Would we be in a better place if we didn't have government at all? Probably not.
Interesting, thanks again for the response. It seems that you are what one might call a 'minarchist', someone who believes in small, non-interventional government.
I understand your point about the bottom line of force when defending rights. What if I told you that having no rulers doesn't mean having no rules?
No, of course I don't believe that crimes shouldn't go unpunished. A principle of anarchy is called the Non-Aggression Principle, which works in conjunction with the Self-Defence Principle. These state, simply put, that one should not initiate violence against another person. However, if one has violence committed against them, they have the right to defend themselves.
The crux of this argument - that government is required to provide force - is dispelled with the statement that everything the government provides can be done privately. Police forces would be accountable directly to their communities or they would be replaced, this is incentive to be a much better force than the unaccountable system of policing we have now.
Security can (and is currently, by private security forces) be provided without government. I would ask you; can you name one service the government provides that cannot be achieved on a voluntary basis privately, rather than using coercion?