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."

At least in the United States, the Constitution has authorized the establishment of a military. Under the philosophical framework in which the United States was founded, the primary purpose of a government is to protect the liberties of its people - from enemies both foreign and domestic. Therefore, while there may be debate about what is appropriate, government spending on the military is at least lawful, which is a synonym for legitimate.

However, most government spending today in the United States is on things which were never authorized by either the Constitution or the philosophical underpinnings of the American system of government. Therefore, such spending (and also regulations, etc.) must be viewed as unlawful, or illegitimate - because it violates the law.

That is hardly subjective.