You're still looking for a universal criteria, and I am not going to give you one. Absolutism is a bad thing, in software and in society.
States that behave atrociously toward their citizens tend to fall victim to revolution, sooner or later. Constitutional democracies, where "consent of the governed" has some real teeth, tend to be stable and avoid violent revolutions, because the need for social change can be handled via the ballot box.
But in terms of State injustice, we're talking about matters of degree, not absolutes. If you're saying that any injustice invalidates the State, you fail, because as long as the State is working pretty well for the majority (as it usually does), then the complaints of the few will just be seen as complaining, not cause for revolution.
Hence, eminent domain. It works pretty well for most people, who see direct benefit in terms of, say, new transportation systems.
The problem with the by-the-ballot approach is that, if voters had reasonably considered that acts of eminent domain might be or would be pursued to complete the project, there is at least some reasonable likelihood that it would not have received enough votes for its funding.
It’s speculative, of course, but “well they voted for it” is not necessarily cause for “well we’ll force out landowners with a fair market value price”. These are often someone’s homes — places for families, their memories, and their sense of pride and security — for which fair market value does not fully appreciate.
By denouncing absolutism, you are being absolutist yourself ;-)
Okay, so if the absense of State would prove to work for the majority of people (which seems to be your criterion), you would support a State-free society?
I'm pretty familiar with historic and modern anarchist thought. In theory, I would support (and prefer) a State-free society. In practice, I don't see it as viable, especially at this point in history.
That said, a State-free society would necessarily be a property-free society. We need the State in order to have the records and the courts to resolve disputes over property ownership.
I don’t think it is viable currently either. I just think it is the ideal we should strive towards.
Paradoxically, I don’t believe an anarchist society could work without private property rights. And if you are familiar with anarchist thought, you are probably also aware of and have considered the arguments for privatizing courts and so on, so I won’t bore you with that.
States that behave atrociously toward their citizens tend to fall victim to revolution, sooner or later. Constitutional democracies, where "consent of the governed" has some real teeth, tend to be stable and avoid violent revolutions, because the need for social change can be handled via the ballot box.
But in terms of State injustice, we're talking about matters of degree, not absolutes. If you're saying that any injustice invalidates the State, you fail, because as long as the State is working pretty well for the majority (as it usually does), then the complaints of the few will just be seen as complaining, not cause for revolution.
Hence, eminent domain. It works pretty well for most people, who see direct benefit in terms of, say, new transportation systems.