Yes our definitions of government are different. I mean the whole system of governance, not just the "bad" susbet.
There is some reactionary logic in throwing the baby along with the water, in other words being disgusted in the entire government structure for the negative things it does. Obviously there is also the group who isn't so reactionary but tries to pinpoint issues specifically in order to solve them.
The issue of free will and forcing society to submit is a complex one. From one perspective one could argue that the citizens have voluntarily (of their own free will) surrendered some of their freedoms in favor of an "organized society" which also includes use of force. From another perspective one could argue that without force and making people submit to it, there would be no way for the government to properly function. This is probably the perspective used by the governments to enforce an ever-decreasing degree of liberties, for our own "good".
Government (as an executive or judiciary branch) is in theory neutral unless the lawmakers shape it into certain directions. The lawmakers -who are generally corrupt- need to be balanced by citizens so that we can return government to a more neutral position. That's the most realistic thing that we can expect over the next 5-10 years (positive scenario - probably unlikely). Negative scenario is a worsening of the current trend.