I dont think it is clear at all that every option in worse.

You might make a case that federal employees would do better than 3rd parties, but this beside the point I am trying to make.

You cant have abusive legal guardianships without state involvement, contractors or not.

Abusive legal guardianships demonstrate we can’t trust individuals not just the government.

So, my point is if you can’t trust people, companies, or the government then what’s left? IMO, the best option is to simply limit the number of things we need to trust. You don’t need to trust news organizations for them to act as a balance on government corruption. That only goes so far, but it’s still useful.

I also agree with limiting the number of individuals or institutions you have to rely on and Trust.

In this case, if durable legal guardianship against the wishes of the ward did not exist, there would be no need to trust anyone, the government or otherwise.

To be clear, what I'm proposing in this case is that nobody can have their assets seized without their permission.

Similarly, I don't have to invest trust in my underwear stain inspector, governmental or otherwise because nobody has the right to stop me inspect my underwear.

There isn’t a trust nobody solution to the guardianship issue. Your solution just means trusting the individual. That seems reasonable on the surface, but results in unpleasantness due to degenerative diseases like Alzheimer's etc. It’s an extremely vulnerable population that constantly get targeted by scammers who prey a people with diminished mental capacity.

To be clear I am not saying government is the right solution, just that the problem does exist. Not just because people get taken advantage of but because taxpayers gets stuck taking care of people who have lost everything.

PS: Being able to trust children is one solution that works at the individual level, but it unfortunately doesn’t scale.

In my example I'm not trusting the individual but individual may be trusting themselves.

I think that is a crucial difference morally, legally, and politically.

It is one thing to give up your own autonomy because you don't trust yourself, which is entirely reasonable.

It is another thing to give up everybody's personal autonomy because you don't trust yourself.

Giving the government the power to strip someone's rights and place them in guardianship I'm sure avoid some elder abuse and suffering.

My point is that I don't think it is ethical for those who want this protection to make that decision for everyone.

Arguing about the ethics is one way to shape policy, but it doesn’t make problems disappear.

Every day people do lose the ability to make informed decisions without preparing for that change. How and why we respond to that doesn’t change the underlying biology.

100% agree it doesn't change the biology. Ethics just determines the acceptable collateral damage from our policy solution.

How many beneficial guardianships are an acceptable trade for one abusive guardianship?

Maybe the answer is absolutely 0 and this should be off limits for policy.