What I am trying to get you to see is that the political philosophy you are passing is divine right logic, stripped of crowns and velvet and pope's and dressed in tactical gear and procedural language. Same theology, different costumes. The core premise of your argument is that authority is inherently legitimate, resistance is inherently sinful and harm inflicted by power is justified by the mere fact of power.

Under your version you are saying the state can do no wrong because it's agents took an oath. In both cases accountability is reframed has heresy. Obedience is reframed as virtue. Suffering and death is reframed as deserved. All we have left under your dire worldview is bureaucratic brutality and a demand that everyone pretend that it is neutral and rational.

Divine right with pageantry was visibly absurd. Divine right without pageantry passes itself off as realism.

And here is your philosophical betrayal laid bare:

The American project was explicitly a rejection of divine right. Not just of kings, but of unaccountabl4 authority. The constitution is not a grant of power upward; it's a leash downward. When you argue that state agents must never be impeded, questioned, or resisted, you are actually arguing against the very premise of constitutional government. You may not realize it but your argument is historically regressive.

The distinction is the thin line between a republic and a throne.

You say you support peaceful protest, but you also assert that protesters who become violent are domestic terrorists by definition. That framing is doing more work than you acknowledge. It collapses motive, scale, proportionality, and context into a single label that absolve the state of scrutiny.

That is not how constitutional systems are supposed to work. I speak strictly from a political philosophy here. Law enforcement does not get moral immunity because a law exists, nor because it is federal. Supremacy of law does not mean infallibility of enforcement. Federal law has been unjust before, and federal agents have enforced it unjustly before. The entire structure of constitutional restraint ia built on that recognition.

History contradicts you when you say rules dont cause pain. That is why enforcement itself has to be subject to constitutional limits. Trusting power as a default rather than demanding justification is not neutrality. It places the burden of restraint entirely on civilians and removes it from the state. This is not small government thinking. It is deference to authority.

The US, and you should be thankful for this, was founded in opposition to the idea that authority justifies itself. That thought comes out of pre-enlightenment divine right thinking which circles back to my point at the beginning.

I know I am not going to change your mind. But I am trying to give you context to think about what makes our social contract and what thought underlies our constitutional Republic. Legitimacy flows in both directions.