Oh yes, and one last point. Thinking that it is reasonable for new people to arrive and put rules on earlier inhabitants, such as in the case of the immortal and the modernized people, is essentially consent of old world conquests. If it is acceptable for newcomers to arrive on the scene and make rules for the original dwellers in an environment, how should a government have right to authority over foreigners? There is a logical conflict there.

Furthermore, the assumption that governments should have authority over individuals because they have power to enforce their will extends to all organizations as well as individuals. If local governments should have authority over the individual, then superpowers such as the USA should have authority over local governments such as Mexico and Canada, because it is more powerful than them, and it would also be fine for France to continue dominating colonized locations that remain weaker than it. Lastly, as long as China has the means, it would be fine for them to dominate the lands, oceans and islands such as Korea, Japan, Mongolia and the Philippines. This thinking also suggests that it was fine for Japanese soldiers in WW2 to rape Chinese women and kill infants with samurai swords, because at that time they had the power to enforce their will.

You are free to feel however you choose. My fundamental point is that power is not righteousness, mightiness is not authorization or justification for dominance. An animalistic human may wish to suggest it is, but civility and rationality are aims of elevating above animalism, so there is no use in animalistic arguments.