no, I agree with mrobot and I'm only commenting because you're framing my argument oddly and suggesting that I wouldn't agree with mrobot.
I think your commentary is tautological reasoning that says the US Government's use of force is legitimate because the point of the US Government is to use force. I agree with mrobot's framing that your line of reasoning is authoritarian and proto-fascist. The "illegal shit" thing feels like a sidebar and not really important to mrobot's argument (and also a bit left-field), so I'm ignoring it entirely.
Governments don't exist for the purposes of exercising force, they exist for things like paving the roads, building hospitals, etc; for the benefit of the commons. Greater specialization leads to greater productivity, and administering things like "how do we pave the roads" is a specialization that all of society benefits from that no one person or entity should bear the responsibility of paying for. Establishing the taxation and monetary structure by which those things are funded is a core function of the government, and a legitimate one in my opinion, as I would rather live in a society where I simply pay my taxes than a society in which I have to sit around and decide which roads projects to "invest" in. I would like to "hire" someone to do that, and I do so by voting for a Superintendent of Highways (or whatever it's called in your jurisdiction), who receives a pay from the government, which is funded in part by the taxes I pay. All of that seems totally legitimate and has nothing to do with the usage of force or the legitimization of state violence.
The use of force by governments is indefensible far more often than it is defensible, and a core function of the citizenry is to question and investigate its governments use of force, and to use their voting rights to eject those in the government that would perpetrate indefensible uses of force against innocents, both domestic and foreign. We should always be questioning the government's usage of force. We should never, ever stop questioning the government's usage of force.
There are some legitimate uses of force. For example, the Nazi government used force, that was bad. We can all probably agree on that. Other governments used force to oppose them. That was good. Again, probably not controversial. Clearly, not all governments' usage of force is equivalently legitimate. It appears that your position is that the US Government's usage of force is more legitimate than other governments' usage of force, because they're the US Government. The idea that the usage of force is more legitimate if it's the US Government than if it's a different government, which is how I interpret your position, is a position so obviously jingoistic that I am embarrassed to have to clarify that I think it's preposterous.
Now let's say the US government formed a red team to attack the electrical grid of, I dunno, Iran. And let's say the Iranian government thought "we sure would like to have a blue team, let's buy some blue team tools", and all the blue team tools were made by ... American companies. Would those American companies be barred from selling blue team tools to the Iranian government, which the Iranian government would use to defend themselves against American aggression? That, in effect, is my question.
If these tools are legitimate tools, then other governments should have the ability to use them. If these tools are not legitimate tools, then no government should use them; not the US Government alone. That later position is what I'm interpreting these rules to mean: that these tools are dangerous, and so China shouldn't have them, but we're good guys, so don't worry, we can handle them safely. The rules aren't "you can't make tools that can be used to violate people's rights", the rules are "you can make and sell and profit off of making tools that can be used to violate people's rights so long as the customers are the US government and its friends, but not if the customers are governments we don't like". If those tools are illegitimate and prone to abuse, then I don't want my own government having them either! The ruling I want is "Don't make PRISM", not "You can sell PRISM to us but not to China".
> The entire premise of government is that is assumes power over others.
No I don't think that's at all the entire premise of government. I think that statement is terrifying and authoritarian, and it is so terrifying that I originally didn't want to engage you. Since you've chosen to attempt to speak for me, I felt it only fitting to clarify my position for anyone that may make the mistake of taking my silence for agreement.