For the first question, let us consider the following statement:
$x\in\mathbb R$ and $x\ge 0$. It is consistent with this statement that:
- $x=0$,
- $x=1$,
- $x>4301$,
- $x\in (2345235,45237911+\frac{1}{2345235})$
This list can go on indefinitely. Of course if $x=0$ then none of the other options are possible. However if we say that $x>4301$ then the fourth option is still possible.
The same is here. If all sets are measurable then it contradicts the axiom of choice; however the fact that some set is unmeasurable does not imply the axiom of choice since it is possible to contradict the axiom of choice in other ways. It is perfectly possible that the universe of set theory behave "as if it has the axiom of choice" up to some rank which is so much beyond the real numbers that everything you can think of about real numbers is as though the axiom of choice holds; however in the large universe itself there are sets which you cannot well order. Things do not end after the continuum.
That been said, of course the two statements "$\mathbb R$ is countable union of countable sets and "There are non-measurable sets" are incompatible: if $\Bbb R$ is a countable union of countable sets, then there is no meaningful way in which we can have a measure which is both $\sigma$-additive and gives intervals a measure equals to their length; whereas stating that there exists a set which is non-measurable we implicitly state that there is a meaningful way that we can actually measure sets of reals. However this is the meaning of it is consistent relatively to ZF. It means that each of those can exist with the rest of the axioms of ZF without adding contradictions (as we do not know that ZF itself is contradiction-free to begin with.)
As for the second question, of course each set is countable and thus has a bijection with $\mathbb N$. From this the union of finitely many countable sets is also countable.
However in order to say that the union of countably many countable sets is countable one must fix a bijection of each set with $\mathbb N$. This is exactly where the axiom of choice comes into play.
There are models in which a countable union of pairs is not only not countable, but in fact has no countable subset whatsoever!
Assuming the axiom of countable choice we can do the following:
Let $\{A_i\mid i\in\mathbb N\}$ be a countable family of disjoint countable sets. For each $i$ let $F_i$ be the set of injections of $A_i$ into $\mathbb N$. Since we can choose from a countable family, let $f_i\in F_i$.
Now define $f\colon\bigcup A_i\to\mathbb N\times\mathbb N$ defined by: $f(a)= f_i(a)$, this is well defined as there is a unique $i$ such that $a\in A_i$. From Cantor's pairing function we know that $\mathbb N\times\mathbb N$ is countable, and so we are done.
The answer is, you cannot.
It is consistent with ZF that the real numbers are a countable union of countable sets, this implies that every set of reals is Borel and therefore measurable. Of course, in such model it is nearly impossible to develop the analysis we know.
However it is consistent relative to an inaccessible cardinal that there is a model of ZF+DC where all the sets of real numbers are Lebesgue measurable, and DC allows us to do most of classical analysis too.
Non-measurable sets can be generated by free ultrafilters over $\mathbb N$ too, which as remarked is a strictly weaker assumption that the axiom of choice. If there are $\aleph_1$ many real numbers and DC holds then there is an non-measurable set as well, which implies that ZF+DC($\aleph_1$) also implies the existence of non-measurable sets of real numbers - however this is not enough to imply the existence of free ultrafilters over the natural numbers!
Several other ways to generate non-measurable sets of real numbers:
- The axiom of choice for families of pairs;
- Hahn-Banach theorem;
- The existence of a Hamel basis for $\mathbb R$ over $\mathbb Q$.
There are several other ways as well, but none are quite close to the full power of the axiom of choice.
One important remark is that we can ensure that the axiom of choice holds for the real numbers as usual, but breaks in many many severe ways much much further in the universe (that is counterexamples will be sets generated much later than the real numbers in the von Neumann hierarchy). This means that the axiom of choice is severely negated - but the real numbers still behave as we know them.
The above constructions and to further read about ways to construct non-measurable sets cf. Horst Herrlich, Axiom of Choice, Lecture Notes in Mathematics v. 1876, Springer-Verlag (2006).
Best Answer
There is a subtle distinction. If I say that you don't have a cat, does that mean that you have a dog?
No. It doesn't. Without the axiom of choice means just not assuming it, but it means nothing about whether or not we assume its negation. It also doesn't tell you how it fails.
Bernstein sets can exist with the axiom of choice being false, simply because choice might fail "elsewhere", while the real numbers can still be well ordered in the universe.
Indeed, Bernstein sets can exist even if the real numbers cannot be well ordered! That much is consistent.
What you really want to say, though, is that you cannot prove the existence of Bernstein sets in ZF alone. And indeed, your argument is fine. Bernstein sets are non measurable, they are uncountable and without a perfect subset, etc. And indeed it is consistent that all sets are Lebesgue measurable, or have perfect subsets, etc.