Human action can be considered from three related modes: capacity, i.e., what the individual can do; motivation, i.e., what the individual wants to do; and, performance, i.e., what the individual does do.
The individual cannot act is disregard of the finite nature of existence. I refer to this as a metaphysical constraint on the capacity for human action.
No individual is omniscient. Why not? The organization of finite information about the state of the finite universe requires more energy than is available in that finite universe. I refer to this as the epistemological constraint on the capacity for human action.
Wishing the above constraints were invalid requires no more energy than accepting them. Therefore, the motivation to ignore these axioms is bears no direct and immediate costs compared to accepting them. Hence, they will be ignore by some people all of the time, all people some of the time, and even by all people, but not all of the time. The epistemological constraint assures us that it is hugely improbable that any one will not ignore the axioms all of the time. Hence, a god-philosopher-king to rule us all is hugely improbable. Wishing it were otherwise, however, entails no direct immediate costs on anyone.
Human action can be considered from the mode of motivation (intention). Like his knowledge, man's imagination is limited. One may not be motivated to act because of an assumption that he does not have a capacity to act; or, he believes he has the capacity, but lacks confidence in the scope of his knowledge to act. ("If only I had realized I could do that at the time.")
Another constraint may be characterized as "Do no harm." This constraint can induce paralysis. ("Gee, there might be harmful externalities if I do this, so I better not do it.") Or, refusing to choose is still a choice. All choice entails consequences if acted upon. All consequences can be characterized as good, bad, indifferent, or indiscernible.
Performance is what an individual does. Most moral controversies concern judging the consequences of what an individual did and what they knew or the demand that they should have known something and reversed their choice, i.e., reckless disregard.
Socio-political controversies may be seen as pre-trial publicity intended to shape the outcome of a trial. Law and government are about punishing people or "Hey, Hey LBJ, how many kids did you kill today?" You may substitute the initials of any official at anytime.
What's the point? Disrespect all authority all of the time, if when it is not prudence to challenge it directly. Why? The greater the capacity for violence, the greater the probability it will be used with reckless disregard for others. Or the other hand, petty criminality is a small price to pay for dismantling an empire.