What is the nature of your alleged "collective agreement," and where is the transfer of individual sovereignty to national sovereignty? You acknowledge that politics exceeds lawful and just powers. What are these lawful and just powers, and how can politics remain legitimate when those powers are exceeded?
I do have the right to forbid drug use on my property, as you stated, but I also have the right to permit it. How can government override this?
Government operates entirely through usurped claims of rights and powers over others, and has zero legitimacy because it can only be tyrannical. The difference between governments are only in scale, not kind.
Every institution is no more than an agreement of it's members. Government particularly so. I assert there is no transfer of sovereignty at all, and any supposition that polities have sovereignty above and beyond that of the individuals that comprise them is entirely fallacious.
The rights of individual persons are the only rights they can effect - the only rights that exist - and such agreements as they undertake amongst themselves have no additional rights than those of the individuals that undertake them.
As you just stated, that statement is not accurate. Government mostly acts to effect your personal rights, and those of your compatriots, in mutual agreeement to do many things you and your compatriots seek to do. However, in many - far too many - ways, governments assume rights and powers they do not have, and we do not have, and in those ways commit many tyrannies onerous to free people, individually and collectively. We each of us weigh our options. Should we put our lives, treasure, and honor on the line and actively oppose those transgressions, or is it better and more profitable to us to tolerate those abuses and benefit from the prosecution of our rights and authority to build roads, fund benefits, and effect policies internationally that such opposition would impede? This calculus is carefully designed by would be despots, profiteers, and outright criminals to fall short of action on our parts, again, all too often.
I do agree that corruption inevitably perverts government from our intention to mutually further our collective purposes, and eventually becomes tyrannical. It is the flaw of centralization that corruption usurps our actual rights and authorities to do so. It is the blessing of the Creator of the universe that today decentralization of the means of production is the leading edge of tech advance across all fields of industry, and will increasingly do so going forward. Because of this fact of physics, polities will inevitably decline and become irrelevant. Individuals will resume effecting their rights and authority in agreement with one another, and institutions will become obsolete and fail to be continued in due time. Whatever the challenge facing humanity today, freedom will eventually provide the means to surmount it, because the laws of physics mandate that decentralization outcompetes centralized mechanisms.
Economics will eventually become unable to be ignored. It will not happen easily, peacefully, or without being abused with every means potential, but greater benefit from taking action will eventually impel the actors, we the people, to act accordingly and best profit from our acts.
You're just repeating your assertion that there is some kind of mutual agreement as the basis for government. Where is this mutual agreement? How does government act to effect my personal rights when no such authority has been asked or granted? It is just assumed, or usurped, by the political class. There is no divine grant of authority, and democracy cannot confer authority.
Are you contending that we, you and I, do not agree with our neighbors to assure our neighborhoods are in good order?
Do we? Some people live in HOAs, and those can even be abusive. Even that little power draws the corrupt. Whether in an HOA or not, we probably actually know our neighbors, and there is actual discussion and mutual consent. Do these actual agreement between people somehow translate to legitimizing government?
There is a massive missing link in your chain of reasoning, particularly when it does not matter if my neighbors disagree with something like whether I drink beer, smoke a joint, or even shoot up heroin if I do not violate their lives, liberty, or property.
Believe me, I know the high school civics arguments about government. I'm questioning the validity of those arguments and the reasoning behind them. How do we get from "I need to coexist peacefully with my neighbors" to "government gets to extort, kidnap, or murder them if they fail to abide by arbitrary laws against non-crimes none of us agreed to in the first place"?
It does not have those rights, because we do not have those rights.
We agree that government is corrupt. Do not think I claim any of those things are lawful government.
However, we both have the right to agree with our neighbors to create an HOA, and decide that only plastic palm trees can stand in our yards. It's stupid, ugly, and would lower our property values, but within our rights to govern ourselves by that rule.
That is what government has rights to do, not rape, rob, and murder people that shoot crack into their eyeballs. Other than such lawful and just agreements we might undertake with our neighbors, there is no just government.
Do we have the authority to impose arbitrary rules on our neighbors, or is this also usurpation? You simply assert we can. Why? Why can no one opt out of even an HOA if it becomes tyrannical?
If all of my neighbors decide they want an HOA, but I dissent, do they have the right to impose it upon my property?
In an HOA, what makes the majority opinion in how to administer it correct, and why is the minority compelled to obey?