Well people harm each other in the name of survival is there is inequality in survival neccessities. And that is not what government inevitably turns into, there are plenty of governments that don't wage wars, don't have nukes and don't engage in imperialism.
You can't deny that it did happen and is currently happening in many countries. Not everyone dies from doing meth a few times, is the idea worth it? No, its far more harmful than good. There is no guarantee to maintaining the current state of your government or the others. Once wealth pours in, it seems like an endless cycle.
I acknowledge that some governments do more harm than good. My point is that in my opinion some (or most) do more good than harm. Sure there is no guarantee for any government that it won't turn into a bad one, but there are no guarantees in life at all. There is also no guarantee that your life would be better without government.
So in your eyes, you accept that the ends justify the means when it comes to government. You also seem to be convinced by their ideology that the "good" that stems from government cannot happen without it. Oh but there are guarantees in life. If you don't eat, you will die, that much is guaranteed. So I'm not sure what you're trying to say here besides to make a quick point (although false). Guarantee's are truths. There is no guarantee that life would be better without slavery, but that isn't the question at all. The question is, is slavery right? Is it legitimate? Trying to own the full amount, or a portion of your fellow man, the only difference between is the former is overt and the latter is free-ranged. To me, its all counter productive and has too much of a possibility of being very destructive. Your views seems to be limited and based solely on your little area of the map.
You're not actually deciding anything for yourself. You are simply going from one shitty place to another and conforming to the rulers rules. You have an illusion of choice. Its like that Noam Chomsky quote: The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum - even encourage the more critical and dissident views. That gives people the sense that there's free thinking going on, while all the time the presuppositions of the system are being reinforced by the limits put on the range of the debate.