A government is just a mafia that has eliminated any meaningful competition and fails to turn a profit.
In Western democracies, this fact has been forgotten, and the Social Contract theory of Rousseau has apparently taken root so strongly that to discuss the moral legitimacy of government is now some sort of third rail within society. In fact, even raising moral topics is seemingly verboten. If one argues that US wars are immoral, he/she is automatically scorned as unpatriotic at best, and immoral monster at worst. Yet, this topic is vital. If humans are ever to improve their societies, they must understand the organizations within their societies. The State is an organization unlike all others. It gains payment not through exchange but through the use of force, and it makes decisions that affect all members of society and not merely those that support it, pay it, or request its services.
So, the social contract is something like: by remaining in the territory of the government that rules a person, that person is agreeing to the terms of service of the government of said place. Of course, it is presumed then that by virtue of birth, he/she has consented to these terms because all newly born babies are rational and can rightly enter into contracts, and that by remaining he/she continues to give his/her consent. This is bullshit because if he/she refuses to acknowledge the government, the government can (and likely will) either throw in him/her in cage and/or kill him/her. This would imply that this contract was not voluntarily entered into and as such isn't actually morally legitimate. Further, this presupposes that he/she would rather be somewhere else, which isn't necessarily the case. A person can think a thing to be shitty without need of thinking that there is a substitute for that thing that is any better.
Beyond the social contract, there is a tendency of people to believe that because they live in a democracy, the government operates with some sort of consent. Afterall, the government was chosen "of, for, and by" the people. This too is bullshit. The bulk of government is never up for election. Those who are ellected are politicians. They are generally known to be liars and cheats. People believe that because they got voted in they are more or less the government that should be there, and while the people could vote for someone who wasn't a complete piece of shit they don't because they do not want the "wrong" piece of shit to take office. It's complete nonsense and means that not only does democracy not work, but that it is more likely that a moral government would rise from a non-democratic system than from a democratic one. The democratic system is self-defeating. It is especially so when political parties with tons of funding and power can structure rules that prevent any other party or non-affiliated person from running for office.
So, then there is the entire premise of democracy. Democracy is the belief that fifty percent of the population plus one vote has the moral right to tell the other fifty percent minus one vote how to live, and further to tell them how to die. If that fifty percent plus one wanted to commit genocide, then it would be legal and, according to democracy, justified. According to democracy, as long as a leader is elected, he/she can do whatever he/she wants and the actions are justified because the people chose. Yet, what is it that grants this right to rule over others to anyone? How can it be that one has the right to tell another how to live and when to die? Mankind has been so corrupted and accustomed to rule that mankind no longer seems to identify what is good and right and true, but only what is legal. People do not magically gain the right to tell other people how to live simply because there are more people in one group than another.
Democracy is a useful tool to a ruler. It manufactures consent. Where once a monarch had to fear even a small minority being enraged by his/her actions and deposing him/her, a President need fear nothing other than Congress which is just as easily bought and sold as himself/herself. The people will fall right in line so long as they believe that the election was "fair". This, in fact, works so well that people can starve and still not revolt. Around the world, people will still not see this as the failure of government or democracy. Those who believe in state-capitalism will claim that this was the failure of socialism. Those who believe in state-socialism will claim that this was the failure of Maduro's regime, or that this was "not true socialism". Meanwhile, anarchists will say that this is just another failure of people trying to centrally plan and control society... Every state is simply a future failed state. Let go of trying to control others.