examinator
"Implicit in my response is the logical assumption that in order to keep those base instincts in reasonable co-existence proportions, essential to the maintenance of society there is a need for authority."

Well the argument is that people only have conflicting interests arising from competition in survival and reproduction, so far as they use aggression or fraud to get what they want by forcing or deceiving people into sacrificing their own interests. This is definitely a problem, but it does not provide a blank warrant for authority in general to do whatever it wants - only to use force to put down force and fraud: no more than that. So there is no issue that that amount of force is justified.

> This clearly necessitates ethics.

It is sufficient for ethics to declare that
a) force and fraud are morally bad, and
b) that force is morally justified to repel or rectify them.

But to use force as the instrument of injustice, to aggress against others to forcibly subject them - there is no need for a 'sliding scale' of ethics to see that these are wrong. Outside defending people against force and fraud, government has nothing else to offer but itself to commit wrongs.

> It is an acknowledge reasoning that in order for a 'society' to exist the individual must defer some of their rights to the authority of the community.

Yes but the only rights needed to be deferred are the (non-)rights of using force and fraud.

I am not being any more 'absolute' than you. I am being less so, because I don't regard myself or anyone as having an absolute justification to use force or fraud, whereas you apparently do. In effect, the idea that the democratic state amounts represents society amounts to assert that majority opinion establishes an absolute right to violate the person or property of others.