Re: that's NOT totalitarianism

I've heard that argument before; for me, it feels like a cop out. A democratic government can either do legitimate, worthwhile things for society or it can't, and saying things done by one part of the government (i.e. the military) are legitimate and others aren't seems subjective.

So, when a parent clothes their child, is it legitimate?
Then surely it is legitimate when they demand they wear a burqa?

When a parent prevents their child from crossing a busy street for a toy they let drop, is it legitimate?
Then surely it is legitimate to beat them unconscious for that?

It is not really subjective to believe some functions are legitimate and others aren't. You can disagree on what functions are legitimate (and that is the source of most disagreements between left and right) but it is not incoherent. It simply depends on what your values regarding society and humanity are. It just needn't follow that if regulating your zipper is "good" then regulating your pockets is "good" too.

I think people of libertarian type points of view are way too dogmatic about things.

...which is why I am not a libertarian, even if I usually look like one.

I am an anarchist, so I believe that the military should be devolved - and I regard the large military apparatus that mostly every country has as a logical but no less undesirable consequence of the large (in terms of population and territory) polities that exist today. A world composed of micro-polities would never need such big militaries.

saying things done by one part of the government (i.e. the military) are legitimate and others aren't seems subjective.

In context, this scares me. Happily, I know you don't mean it.