I still think your analogy is wide of the mark. There are a vast number of functional disanalogies between living under a government and being a customer of a bank. For example, I can choose to take part in the bank, and thus choose to be subject to their rules. If there exists no bank with which I am satisfied, I can keep my money. I cannot do so with government.
The vast majority of individuals do not choose (so long as we are speaking of genuine choice), either explicitly or tacitly, the government with which they live under; and, further, the vast majority of individuals do not possess the ability to simply say, "Well, there exist no governments with which I am satisfied, so I will just live according to my own law", thus declaring they are no longer subject to the laws of any governments. For, if most individuals make this proclamation, the government which claims possession of the territory in which they reside, will ignore said proclamation and still impose their laws on said individual. Banks lack this might.
Your analogy still fails to hold. This time, it fails on the notion of cooperation. In a bank, I both choose the bank and, in doing so, choose whether or not to cooperate with thieves. Further, a bank possesses my money. Money of which I have the power to do what I want. If I want to lock it away from others, I can cooperate with whomever I so please to lock it away, spend it, burn it, etc.. A government does not possess my liberty. Unlike money, in which I transfer to a bank and say, "Hold on to this and, based solely on trust, let me have some of it when I want it", I do not turn to the government and say, "Here is my liberty, enslave me, and let me be free when I want to". In fact, the latter sentence does not make coherent sense. If taking my liberty is up to me and I have the discretion to take it when I want, then I cannot transfer it to the government (I cannot transfer it to anyone, if that is the case). If taking my liberty is not up to me and I do not have the discretion, then I actually do not have liberty. I can no more say, "Here, hold on to my liberty", then I can say, "Hey, you can enslave me unless I don't like it, in which case I'll leave". To say such things is just senseless word-play. If liberty is a real concept (and maybe it is not), then liberty and government are disanalogous to money and banks.
Of course he is right, and this plays off the point I made above. Once individuals have surrendered their liberty, they have become slaves in some form or fashion. Being a slave means, as explained above, that one is not at the discretion to simply tell their master that they no longer enjoy being a slave and so will no longer be a slave. If that is the case, then they have not given up any liberties to begin with. So, the liberties are surrendered, the people are enslaved, and it takes superior might, not simply a request, to overcome the master and thus escape the bondage of slavery.
Further, if it takes superior might to overcome the master, then what is implied is the master has more might than the slave. If the master has more might than the slave, then what stops the master from taking more liberties from the slave? Certainly not a request from the slave not to take their liberties; certainly not even a demand. Superior might is all that can be called upon to reverse the situation.
When the master is the state and the slaves are the citizens, and the master has at least more might than the individual citizen, then how does the citizen gain superior might? It might be through numbers (divide and conquer v. unite and overcome). But, if you have a program in which the master has also invaded the privacy of communications of the slaves, then how are these slaves ever to unite and overcome? On top of that, the master has superior weaponry and is working to take away all weaponry from the slaves. Further, the master can, based on nothing more than suspicion, remove the slave from the community of his/her comrades and detain said slave in isolation indefinitely.
The only way to avoid this is to have individuals that represent the interests of the citizens running the government. Since information and knowledge work with desire to produce interest, the government cannot hide information and knowledge from the citizen and still proclaim to represent the interest of the citizen. The interest of the individual citizen, therefore, must be replaced by some theory of the common good or interest of the whole, in which generality replaces particularity. But, if that is the case, then decisions are being made not based on representation of the interests of actual citizens; they are being made based on representation of some theoretically general "common good". What does "representative government" mean in such context though? Why not simply have a dictator, since what is happening is that the theory is telling the citizens what is good for them anyway? Again, just make the citizens slaves "for their own good".
