You are right, of course. But Rousseau made it quite clear that the sovereignty of a government is discretionary. This sort of thinking isn't convincing on an ideological or theoretical level to anyone but a medieval peasant, and it only increases my indignation.

Then be indignant I guess? Countries pressuring each other to do things dates back as far as the existence of countries. And it isn't like this is a broadly unpopular idea either. Most people do actually believe that multinational corporation should pay their fair share of taxes.

It's interesting that you're being downvoted but you make a solid point. People in government are no different than those not in government, we're the same human beings. To suggest that they should be able to do anything they want seems pretty backwards and quite contrary to the enlightenment ideas.

It's a philosophical point disconnected from reality. In most countries we've got some system of elected government with various branches who get more power and influence than other people. Having a solid philosophical point against it doesn't change the world.

"Why is the government allowed to put me in prison for not paying my taxes, but when I kidnap someone and lock them up in my basement, I'm somehow the bad guy?!"

How so? do remember that they can only do things supported by the general climate of opinion so them being in government isn't the point of contention here. It's what we as people tolerate (passively or actively) that matters. Besides, this greatly undermines the justification for anti-trust laws as they're clearly communicating to everyone that "it's OK to collude"