As always, this is a great and thought provoking post, thanks @clayboyn :-) I agree with almost all you say, only you're blaming the wrong entity, as so many do these days, in my opinion. Well, not exactly the wrong entity... It's complicated... The government is not the problem. The need for government is embedded in this "agreed value of exchange," which is a contract, which can only be "binding" when it's backed up by force. If you want to maintain a system of exchanging property, you'll need to protect that property. Property, or ownership, is a legal construct and the beginning of the loss of freedom. And what is "freedom" anyway? Freedom can be found on an uninhabited island (put extremely, but you know what I mean).
Or, put in another way, how can government, in itself, be the problem in a democracy (if we had a real democracy)? If we (the people) keep electing these rich representatives, because, hey they're rich so they must be very smart, they know how to become successful in life, aren't we the problem then? This is the real tragedy of Trump's election (and upcoming re-election); it's the ultimate vote of confidence in a failing socio-economic model, one that leads to further atomization and divisiveness. The businessman as savior of the common folks... it's so sad...
Government, in itself, has never been the problem; we need to organize if we're not to fall back into a tribal lifestyle. We're not owned by the government, but by the ruling class that owns them. That are them. Our real problem, for the last 12,000 years since the neolithic revolution, is that we've been unable to deal with the surpluses we produce when cooperating in large groups. Freedom in a material world starts at the material level, simple Maslow equation. It's not the government, but a 12,000 year old economic system that holds us back. And all major narratives have always served to maintain this layered system, be it the Bible or the The Wealth of Nations. Started with the largest farm, and now we have the Fortune 500.
Freedom is when the farmer, the accountant and the surgeon all realize they're not on an uninhabited island, that they're all depending on each other, as well as on all their other "customers" who follow different walks in life. Depending on each other for their mutual "freedom," there is no such thing as being independent in this age. Let's not call it "government" then, but we need to organize. And the bigger the organization, the more potential freedom we create for each other. Even world government, or world organization, in itself, doesn't have to be a problem, could even be the best thing ever; think Star Trek. Unfortunately we didn't go Roddenberry's way but Orwell's, so now we have to fear world government, even our own governments, as you so eloquently explain.
We've been continuously disappointed, shafted even by our governments for as long as we've been alive. This, for me, is just another indication of how the real owners, the capitalist plutocrats, have always managed to shift the blame away from themselves. Your social security number is just another bar-code indeed, which should be another indication that you're owned by a corporate, not a political class. This government is not to be trusted. No one should be forced to pay taxes to fund wars in countries far away. But everyone should see the need to contribute to all we share in the commons. Freedom starts with not having to worry about surviving tomorrow, and we've managed that potential a long time ago. We still have that potential, but it'll never come to fruition if we keep telling ourselves that we're independent. We're not. We never have been, and it's not the way forward, despite beautiful developments like CRISPR, 3D printing and the likes.
Sorry for the rant my friend, got carried away a bit...:-) All this to say that I essentially agree when talking about the government we have, but not when talking about what government should be ;-)