Your 2nd and 3rd sentences bend the definition of government in my mind into something I don't recognize. What is government if not the monopoly on the use of force in order to defend the law? If it is something else, I don't think we need it.

But I do think you have pointed out something of critical import that is not well understood. I wouldn't be as absolute as you, but law derives from nature. Laws that work well must be in line with nature and in that sense, such laws are discovered by men, not created by or dictated by them.  But only to a degree.  The real situation is far messier once you get into the details.  Theft depends on a shared agreement as to ownership which isn't always clearly agreed upon. Rape depends upon the will of the victim which cannot easily be adjudicated (believe all women?), and what about age of consent does nature give you an absolute number?  Murder depends upon whether or not it is just (in defense of your family for example). Principles can be stated, but details will always exist making the whole affair a giant mess that few people want to soil themselves with, other than those whose minds were soiled already (typically the lawyers).

I would be in favor of a nation whose citizens voluntarily joined (and contains no other citizens) which is founded on foundational law that cannot change, not by any democratic or republic means, and if those laws become "bad" you are free to quit, but you cannot change the foundation... but which then has subservient laws and rules that hierarchically have different statuses and which can be changed and are voted upon perhaps by democratic vote, perhaps by republican representation, or whatever.