Sorry for the delay in responding to you; I just now have the opportunity to type out a decent reply on my laptop.  Since there's a fair amount to unpack in your response, I wanted to give you the benefit of a well-written response.

>  These aren't mere exceptions to rules, the staggering number of cases and rulings against the government show that the law has some degree of impartiality.

There is no degree of impartiality.  If the only party that can arbitrate disputes between you and the government is, in fact, part of the government, it is not impartial.  That cases are decided in favor of the plaintiff with some frequency does not change this fact.

> However, to equate the U.S. to a police state with a "monopoly" on violence (even though consent along the lines of Locke is far more visible and prominent than violence) is disingenuous, and disrespectful for the people who have suffered under totalitarian regimes.

First point first: the federal and state governments of the U.S. _do_ have a monopoly on violence.  They are the sole arbiters of whether or not violence is justified, and they are the only ones that determine whether or not an agent of the state has used violence excessively.  To say that it is anything other than that because the U.S. maintains the illusion of impartiality and justice is disingenuous.

Second point second: how is it disrespectful to other people who have suffered and currently suffer under totalitarian regimes?  My article was left purposefully ambiguous.  The only reason I mentioned the United States was because you mentioned using political action, so I used the example I most familiar with to demonstrate how that was, at best, the most remote possibility, right up there with the government agreeing to dissolve itself.  The content of the article applies doubly to places where there is a hard authoritarian regime, like Romania in the 80's - which is where I was born and grew up.

> And yet, they suck a whole hell of a lot less than many other regimes of the past (and also the present).

That the authoritarianism in the U.S. is a lot softer than the Socialist dictatorship my parents grew up under in Romania doesn't change the fact that it still is an authoritarian regime.  I agree that progress is possible, but it doesn't come if people ignore facts.  The fact is, appealing unjust and immoral acts by one party to that same party for arbitration is, by its very nature, unjust and biased.  Whether or not you manage to win your case is irrelevant; it means that you won simply because the party that wronged you decided it was easier and more beneficial to them to let you win than to rule against you.

Thank you for your measured responses, by the way.  This is the kind of conversation I moved to Steemit to have.  Very rarely do you engage in actual discourse elsewhere on the internet.