First, you seem to conflate two distinct ideas. Government is a group of people who claim a territorial monopoly in violence, and this is consistent with even maonstream political science definitions. I would define governance as voluntary, consensual agreements between people to organize cooperation, economic exchange, and dispute resolution. The latter does not require the former. In fact, I argue that society operates through a web of decentralized organizing forces of interwoven consenting structures today, not because of government, but in spite of it.
Second, you persist in mischaracterizing my rejection of government as rejection of society. Individualism in its rejection of government coercion is not rejection of society any more than abolitionists rejecting chattel slavery were rejecting economic production. Your range and radius concept is completely irrelevant. To make another analogy, it's like asking how large a church parish should be. We have overlapping religions, denominations, and congregations interspersed with nonbelievers now in spite of the pervasive belief in the need for a single dominant religion even in Europe a couple centuries ago. If you can see why England does not need to enforce Anglicanism or Spain does not need to enforce Catholicism for society to function, then you can perhaps also see how that applies to other aspects of society, too.
You mention police and courts as essential, but you are ignoring the rampant corruption and abuse in government monopolization of these services now, the already widespread use of alternatives today, and the possibilities we could have. I can direct you to theorists and arguments in more detail if you like. As it stands, your position is no different from, "but without slavery, who would pick the cotton?"
Youu assume we need to resist government on their terms with money and power. Again, my tactic is to undermine it. That means discussing ideas with statists such as yourself in an effort to persuade you peacefully in contrast to the political method of coercion, and build alternatives to government systems. Cryptocurrency is one example of the latter now that governments have monopolized money. We overcome the state by building better options, not by seizing control of the established order. We need abolition of slavery, not kinder slavemasters.
Stating complaints and decribing problems with the systems around us is not "whining." That's a lazy cop-out to avoid the problem instead of discussing it. The Internet today is the equivalent of broadsheets and pamphlets 200+ years ago when people were discussing the problems of monarchy and empire. Would you have been a royalist or a liberal then? Would you have accused people of whining and rejecting society if they dared question the divine right of kings?
Corruption is absolutely characteristic of power. Lord Acton's famous quote states, "Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men, even when they exercise influence and not authority: still more when you superadd the tendency or the certainty of corruption by authority." Many other thinkers have echoed the same sentiment as well, and their reasons for reaching that conclusion are based on simple observation and historical analysis alike. Biblically, we are told David, the "man after God's own heart," even had a man killed so he could take that man's wife as his own purely because he could. We also have numerous psychological studies on the nature of authoroty and its destructive effects. The Stanford Prison Experiment and the Milgram Experiment are the most famous, but not the only examples.
When I switch from my phone to my computer, I can provide links to other sources and additional evidence if you would like. I know my conclusions fall outside the mainstream, but I arrived at them only after wrestling with a lot of preconceptions.