See, you are trying to say that there are two possible positions - either the government is allowed to interfere with peoples lives, or it is not.
Most people believe something in the middle - there are situations where they would like the government to interfere. For instance, if they pay you for a service, and you don't deliver it, they might want the government to take action against you. In this case, you could argue they are wrong, there are alternative mechanisms (e.g. escrow, reputation damage).
But there are situations where only potentially violent action will help - e.g. theft. In the lawless world of Bitcoin, theft is a constant concern, much less so than in the real world where a man with a gun is just a phonecall away. Could we maintain a society like this without any enforcement of law? Really?
So, if you allow me for a moment government interference in matters of murder and theft, maybe you will allow me interference in matters of identity theft. Then of fraud?
So most people end up willing to trade freedom for security to some extent. (And it matters little what they deserve. The world doesn't work like that). I guess you can choose your level of tradeoff by moving to Somalia or Singapore, or not moving.
My tradeoff level is 'I think the government should prevent people being harmed by predictable irrational behavior'. That's why I support an age of consent, an age of criminal responsibility, regulation of harmful addictive substances, and socialized mental health care.
You may not. I hear it's sunny in Somalia. If you move, I'd love to stay on your couch for a bit.