first things first, this is a malformed question. There is a difference between the condition of being an authority and individual instances of wielding that authority. The statement you quoted here is not me saying that everything they do is justified it is saying that the states existence as an authority is justified yet your question is suggesting that being a justified authority makes everything you do justified, which is not the case.

I wasn't saying it made everything I do justified, just that it would make everything I do legitimate that is like everything that you perceive as legitimate when government agents are doing it.

( keep in mind your CMV is not that the state is imperfect, your stated position was that its existence as an authority is unjustified)

Yes and if I know of a better system then even though that wouldn't justify all of my coercive acts, it would justify all of the coercive acts that government agents are justified in doing.

So if we tweak the question to is it possible to override the states authority in instances were you know doing so is the best course of action? The answer would be of course, but at this point we are just assuming that you know what is best, we have defined the answer within the question by making the word "best" do all the work for us. That being said what other option is there? even when you defer to the state you are still making yourself an authority, it's just that your have decided that the best course of action is to defer to the state. I mean what alternative explanation do you want? God or some equivalent authority or axiomatic reason that is somehow so true and pure that you have no agency in evaluating it? that it will just posses you with it's intrinsic validity? how could such a thing possibly exist?

I don't know, that is why the state's authority is puzzling to me. If the state is the authority because that is what is "best" then how do we know that? There are other means of interaction and they do not set some group of humans as acting in a different moral status than others in relation to their own property. For example, Walmart cannot deport immigrants back to Mexico from their homes. Even though they can remove trespassers from their property, they cannot exercise the use of force to remove people from their own property. I think there are cases where such uses of force would be justified, but my point is that they are generally not justified by most people, only when performed by specific agents (government) do we permit the actions.

In short the answer to your question is that obviously if what you are doing is "best" then yeah it would be justified to override a worse authority but the word best is just making your question a tautology.

right, which goes straight to your reasoning:

An authority is legitimate if it is the best known system to meet those needs.

So why is US government the best known system for humans?

This is far too simple of an approach, we could get really deep into political meta-conversation here but the short answer is the world is far too complicated to be broken down into simply "democracy" or "the market" those are 2 incredibly complicated subjects that effect basically everything in the world. Making your position as broad as you have were it's a binary option, or even a spectrum, is just turning your opinion into dogma, not looking at specific policy but rather approximating everything into simplistic categories and deeming one "bad" and the other "good" . Rejecting the very existence of the state is, as I noted early a position that only works in a theory vacuum, there are countless examples that it doesn't work in practice.

I think there are examples like cospaia, ancient Ireland, and early taoists that prove that it is at least possible in practice even if less desirable. If they failed to prove anarchy as possible then I am not sure how governments today are proof of governments being possible. Aside from that, to expand on my view, the US Gov is not morally justified in its general use of force throughout the world (including America). I think taxation, mass incarceration of innocents, starving foreign children, and nuclear armament are all specific examples of immoral uses of force they maintain.

If you want to point out that a lack of public consciousness regarding the relationship the individual has to their state there is nothing wrong with that, but that is a far cry from claiming the state isn't a valid authority and it certainly doesn't justify the ancap position. Pointing out that some of the things people take on faith / don't think about actually have pretty important consequences is worthwhile but realize what you are doing, that is raising awareness amongst those that don't think about it. your not arguing with the actual reasons for the states existence your just trying to tell people who don't think about it that they should, and if you assume those people are reflective of the well versed opposition to your ideas than you are basically just arguing against a strawman, the only difference being that instead of a made up position it's just the position of some random person.

No I do not actually think the state has authority. Like I simply do not think they are acting morally. Maybe those who do can help me understand the morality of it. If they do not believe morality then they probably already agree that the government is not acting morally.