Badahur,
Furthermore, for those who wish to renounce the citizenship, they can simply do so.
Really? You can renounce it all you want, but the Fed and State are still going to treat you any differently. They'll still search you at airports and confiscate your money, among other things.
If a person owns the land they live on, and decides to renounce their citizenship, they should be left alone, exempt from both the priveliges and duties of that citizenship. No group of people have any right whatsoever to intrude into life of a non-consenting individual (assuming the individual has not harmed another person, in which case that victimized person would have a right to restitution).
The only just government - that is, the only government which can exist without necessarily and flagrantly violating human rights - is one based on the actual consent of its citizens. This situation is synonymous with anarchy, because the government is denied arbitrary authority.
Rule-breaking is actual harm.
A rule has no weight simply because it is a "rule". The weight of a rule is defined by the harm (or lack thereof) caused by violating it. I (or, say, Congress) could proclaim a rule prohibiting the ownership of Volvos, but I (or Congress) cannot justly enforce that rule, as no harm comes of breaking it. The principle is upheld through the legal doctrine that an unconstitutional law is null and void from moment of passage, and may be violated with impunity.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There is, then, nothing to keep a government from instituting rules that address no actual harm, then increasing their social control by enforcing those rules.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sure there are. For one thing, the government is elected by the people. For another, government is not monolithic - checks and balances.
To be exact, government is chosen by a majority of the people, not the whole people. There is no actual check against the majority using the government to grieviously violate the rights of any given minority (like machinegun owners, for example). Furthermore, the government IS monolithic - no branch has a motive to curtail the power of any other branch. The Supreme Court is the worst example of this - the Court is appointed by the other branches, can only be overruled by Constitutional Amendment (an action of the legislative branch), and serves a life term. It has only the most tenuous tie to the will of the people, and only the will of the majority of the people at that. The practical result of our "system of checks and balances" has been the concentration of power in the hands of the Federal government, for all the branches have a vested interest in usurping powers from the States and citizens.