You've explained the nature of the state according to a theory scribbled down on some paper. And maybe you believe that it has a right to do those nineteen, so called services, but I don't. I don't believe in constitutions or governments and that "one" describes the "other" or that a piece of paper can restrict the other.

More like an Agreement. A meeting of minds, not a Theory. Hence your inability to understand the very nature of the thing you're arguing against, under the presumption that you are a party to this Agreement. You are not. It has nothing to do with Belief, so the point is lost completely once again: it's a matter of fact, this is not about "does burger king have a right to sell burgers!". Yes there is a contract, yes you are not party to it, yes it's solely concerning those who are Federal in nature, or Foreign Agents acting in a Private Capacity. Therefore it's not force, the Status is presumed onto you but you can clear the presumptions and therefore the whole system doesn't apply to you, the only things that would apply to you would be the Golden Rule and Law of Free Will, Due Process, Facing your Accusers, Jury of your Peers etc. Read the Maxims of Law and understand that there are exceptions to all the federal rules, they have to give remedy and cure or it will be tyranny. Tyranny on paper is the evidence that keeps Anarchist from grasping and pointing at substantial facts that you are forced. You are not, but what you don't know is used against you, once you clear the suppositions on what the state is because you believe people cannot join and make such agreements and deal with the reality of questioning any and all presumptions supposed onto you by all agents of the state, which are lawful presumptions at this point. Yet the manipulators of money did commit the largest fraud mankind has known under the auspices of government, which is indicative of every other government out there, by raking in odious debts on a debt based system which was vouched without right for the bankrupted United States of America Inc back in 33 and did the same thing 65 some odd years before with the Public Charitable Trust, except back then they just claimed to own all our lawful copyrighted names and thereof trademarks, and created a strawman Citizen to which the newly chartered "Federal" government presumed onto all souls.

If me and Charley make an agreement that we will take care of everyone's mail, trash, utilities, and all those things there is nothing wrong with that, if we don't deliver then we lose our integrity, yet if we deliver you aren't forced to accept these things, you can refuse as you'd imagine, and the government is doing the same thing.

Some people long ago who had the desire to rule in the name of so called government, have written a story that whoever "represents"that entity "government" has the right to rule

Wrong, demonstrate that such is the case, that people made up Rights to Rule, especially with impunity or immunity as you seem to want to imply and regardless of consent and in spite of it being tyranny.
Show us the undeniable proof that this Tyranny exists. You're making paramount claims with nil evidence.

It's like saying the nature of Santa Claus is bringing presents to good kids (and punishment to bad kid's, in the sense of hitting with a sort of rod and kidnap them in a burlap sack to his house in spain this is how the story goes in europe), because that's written in the Christmas books. And because I believe those scribbles on paper in that book, that is the nature of Santa Claus.
In reality the nature of santa claus is you fooling your children that if they are good they get presents and if they are bad they get punishment from santa claus but in reality they don't get the presents from santa claus And santa claus is not looking if they are good or bad. Because santa clause does not exist.

It's manipulation, and lying and ruling via an non existing entity.

It's like you're likening the nature of something you don't understand the premise of and reject it's foundation by claiming it's a mater of belief to something you show more than cursory knowledge about, that's all.

The existance of the entity is not the problem, the problem is your supposed premise that a Good Faith Agreement is a matter of belief or it has anything to do with imposing some will on people when it's essentially a tool to guard against tyranny and a Public Trust, and not a "way to rule over people because they can call themselves government", utterly disrespectfully novice theory of the reality of lawful governance, which involves consent and not Force.