I feel like I’m owed an apology, my presumption was accurate as you yourself admit. I’m characterizing your argument on the assumption that far less interference is possible and desirable. It is. Why the rush to an absurd absolute?
So to be clear, you have no problem with government ‘harming other people,’ in fact you demand it. Your argument centers on who it should harm. Mine is that we should aim for it to harm fewer.
If I refused to give you money, you cannot claim that I harmed you. Is ‘ease of free speech’ an example of government harm? I wouldn’t think so. Why do you think the ease of exercising our constitutional rights is an example of government harm? You do have a few points that don’t follow this formulation though, such as the drug war and immigration. I can get behind those. However, the free movement of people won’t be feasible until birthright citizenship is ended, as it is with every other industrialized nation.