> The state exists at our pleasure.
This must be a usage of the word "pleasure" of which I was previously unaware...
> It has no legitimacy otherwise and should be opposed if it continues to exert authority beyond its mandate. This battle has already been fought and won and our rights were paid for with the blood of our forefathers.
No they weren't. As you say yourself, "At the end of the day, 'might makes right'" - power has accrued among the mightiest, or in more recent cultural parlance, the richest.
> The power of the state has a limit and that limit has long since been passed.
I wish I believed this.
>There *must* be some avenue whereby people who disagree with the government of the day can organize, protest and if need be make their wishes plain with civil disobedience.
Yes - but there are laws against engaging in any and all such activities. These are largely enforced at the discretion of the police, but given that for anyone to notice, such activities would have to happen in London, and therefore the police in question is the Met, it's bound to end badly.
> If no such avenues exist, then we exist in a tyranny which does not have legitimate authority over us.
Well spotted, full marks.
> The representatives of the state break the covenant whereby they gained their power in the first place.
As above - they gained their power in the first place by being bigger and badder (and more recently richer, and therefore able to subcontract bigness and badness out to lowlier grunts), so no convenant applies.
> A portion of our fundamental laws are designed precisely to ensure we are still able to regain control of our government.
No, a portion of our fundamental laws are designed precisely to prevent this (RIPA, Official Secrets, Terrorism legislation, and the tacit understanding that standing in the street holding a placard constitutes a breach of anti-terrorist legislation if the plod on the ground decides it does). There is a second portion of our laws which were designed precisely to make us *think* that we have rights, but these are always secondary to the first portion, and are meaningless in the absence of a proper constitution anyway.
>We still have the power, by virtue of our numbers, to enforce our will.
Depends on whom you mean by "we" - most people think and vote the way they do because the rich people control their world-view in a way which keeps them scared and stupid. So they vote for the lizards because they're afraid that the wrong lizards will get in (pace Douglas Adams).
I, of course, am not stupid - heaven forefend - but since being not-stupid makes me a member of a small political minority in the modern British world, I AM pretty fucking scared.