Who is arguing "the default status of people is to be governed"?
I don't care what "the default status of people" is, that isn't the argument. The authority of government derives from the consent of the governed through a representative democracy. You can sit here and argue 2+2=5 all you want like you usually do, but that is an aspect of political philosophy that's been well established for over 2 centuries. If you don't like it, you don't have to live with it, but if you choose to live in society with everyone else, you must abide by it. That's why you don't get to kill people or steal other people's property. You give up those "rights" for safety and the reasonable expectation of security. Without the government, there is no central authority guaranteeing citizens these basic necessities to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Then there are the things you take for granted that have come about directly through government action, like landing on the moon, Hubble, creating the internet and GPS, and a whole list of medical and scientific advancements that have saved countless millions of lives.
The one thing your entire argument comes down to is you don't believe you ever gave your consent to the government to behave in this way and you believe it does things that are wrong. Society has told you that you have given your consent because the government does act that way and there's nothing you can do to change it, so either you're right and your opinion doesn't matter or you're wrong. Either way, your arguments are not very persuasive. The system you espouse leads to many more problems than the one we have now and many more people would be much worse off if it were put in place.
