Maybe I'm not the right audience, but points you made just weren't very persuasive for me. You postulate that government does not have legitimate right to deal with certain issues. The main question that kept popping in my mind while I read, is why the hell the government shouldn't deal with education, taxes, and arms trafficking? I just didn't buy your axioms (and I believe many people won't either), so the whole argument fell apart in the very begining. I think you should elaborate more on these whys more than on what follows if the reader does accept these initial points.

Let me try to build an argument in support of government powers. Your might find it helpful to know your enemy. If your article addresses issues before they even arise in the mind of your reader, it might help persuade people onto your side.

So, it goes something like this... On one hand, being an educated civilized individual, I want to live in society of educated people; I want the society to be safe; I see these values as universal and beneficial for all; and I totally agree to pay a share for it. On the other hand, I see human nature, including my own, as weak, slothful and often violent. I am sceptical of people as a whole being able to self-organize into society I'd be willing to live in. Because of that I see it wise to provide the government with rights to apply reasonably limited power and gather reasonably limited taxes. The question is negotiatable, what the powers and taxes should be to be reasonable, but I can hardly believe we should cease them completely.

Analyzing what I just wrote, it seems that the core of my scepticism lies in negative opinion on human nature. This might be a weak point for you to attack.

Anyway, good luck with your project :)