A government is basically a company, in the sense that they are both just groups of people associating for their collective self-interest. The real difference, at least in the US, is that the government is much more transparent and everyone is granted an equal voting share at birth (theoretically). Those are the biggest differences in the recipe, the outcomes differ because of those ingredients.

I don't see how doing away with our current company and hoping that more opaque groups with more concentrated voting power could be expected to produce any better results. It would essentially guarantee extreme concentration of power and wealth. A group that includes everyone that are under it's power, and taxation of those members, are the only ways to avoid the prisoner's dilemma and ensure that everyone is contributing to things that are beneficial to everyone instead of competing in ways that are detrimental to everyone except the owners of the group. If the only situation the central government could ever intervene in was direct threats to life and property (I assume you are including contract enforcement?), then there is no incentive for companies to avoid social traps [1]; anti-competitive behavior, price gouging, indentured servitude (they signed the contract, after all!), pollution... there is no amount of external cost too great as long as there is even a modicum of internally-captured benefit. It makes the game not even zero-sum, but negative-sum. The basic argument is that avoiding these issues in education, healthcare and retirement are all already forms of protecting everyone's life, property, and liberty. For instance, the only reason you're even able to earn "your" money that you claim the government steals is because of roads the government has built. What's to stop a company from buying the sidewalk and road outside of your property and charging you half of your salary as a subscription fee to use it? In fact, allow a company to buy up the road networks across the nation and charge as much as people are willing to pay; they'd make tons and tons of money, but introduce huge friction into the entire economy (and likely destroy GDP).

Government control can cause problems and create inefficiencies, certainly. It can create moral hazards too. And there is an argument to be made that the control that the government currently has is too much, and dialing it back could cause a wellspring of beneficial innovation. I think that's likely the case in some industries (healthcare, especially). However, it would also cause a huge surge in innovation in negative ways too; there's a lot of low-hanging fruit in unsavory areas that companies haven't pursued because it's been illegal to do so. Throwing out nearly all of the oversight, checks and balances that have been devised can only make sense if you completely ignore the outsize effects that everyone benefits from due to the controls that we do have in place. The benefits are often invisible (or nearly invisible), so they can be hard to see and so they are easy to ignore in crafting the ideal world in one's head. When thinking of the government, we are naturally more often going to think of the times it's failed us. I just urge you to reconsider. There are places that are run on principles closer to the libertarian ideal, and they tend to be run by power-hungry madmen and be much worse places to live than democracies unless you're at the very, very, very top.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_trap