@notverylikely:
First, just so we're on the same page (though I admit you never implied you believed this to be the case), I'm not arguing for anarchy--my original post was actually questioning the idea of getting rid of all government, and implicitly calling for a limited libertarian government in place of no government, in that a vacuum of governmental power inevitably leads to the establishment of a government of some kind, whether it calls itself that or not. Since such is the case, we might as well try to establish one that respects basic human rights and is very strictly defined and limited.
Second, when I say that (for instance) the U.S. government holds no legitimate authority over me in particular, I'm arguing that from an existentialist and individualist viewpoint. I'll try to re-frame my argument completely within the terms and concepts of the U.S. government--and apply it only to my specific circumstances--so as to make my stance more available to those who prefer to think purely in these terms:
Premise 1: I have certain inalienable rights, among them life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. (Source: U.S. Declaration of Independence)
Premise 2: In your own words, "the government was formed by representative that the people had elected specifically to perform that task." For the sake of argument, I'll even concede the following (arguably false) sub-premise: when the U.S. Federal government was formed, 100% of the governed gave explicit written and/or verbal consent to abide by any and all laws, decrees, writs, etc of the newly-formed government.
Premise 3: A contract exclusively between party A and party B is non-binding on party C, even where party C is a human being and the biological offspring of either party. (I'm not a contract lawyer so don't know the proper legal term for this concept, but it's "common knowledge" for anyone who has even very limited experience with contracts.)
Premise 4: I have at no time entered into and am therefore not a party to any contract, written or verbal, which establishes me as subject to the rule of the U.S. Federal government.
Premise 5: The U.S. Federal government, via standard operating procedure for such, routinely and deliberately in the course of enforcing its own laws, restricts and curtails the freedoms of life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness of what it defines as its citizens.
Presmise 6: I fall under the definition of a citizen of the United States of America, more exactly a natural-born citizen, who did not immigrate to this country.
Conclusion: The U.S. Federal government routinely restricts and curtails what it itself claims are my inalienable human rights, and without any contractual basis to do so.
I believe the logic is sound and the argument is therefore valid, but if you have issues with one or more premises, let's rumble. ;-)