@ProcessParsnip Oh. Has he been listening to fascist theory? Denouncing these safeguards is a common feature in fascist tirades, because it offers ample opportunities of dramatic performances about a "big man of the people fighting the nefarious red tape / fraud, waste and abuse" and such nonsense — and oftentimes, the specific tyrannical things that they want to do when breaking the safeguard are, indeed, popular among their constituents, allowing them to enfirmen support from these constituents.And, as for specifity, no modern mainstream political thinker adocates against such safeguards in general; there's only debate over which safeguards would be the most preferable. The closest, perhaps weirdly — but as you point out, some of the theory gets silly fast — are the Libertarians and the Objectivists, when arguing against a special case: the safeguards against antisocial hoarding and dispensation of private property, which both sometimes do clad in quasi-electoral arguments (or, well, real electoral quasi-arguments in the context of corporate governance), but both are on the fringes of the ancap/fasc spectrum to begin with.