Of course government has also produced some new and useful technologies, too. It doesn't surprise me, since it routinely uses up 30 - 50% of the resources of the whole economy (as measured in GDP), it is bound to do SOMETHING useful, probability theory dictates that

Actually, who knows how many more inventions there would have been, if these resources would have not been tied up in government and thus things like financing a bureaucracy, social spending, and war. Hey, war! Wasn't that the reason why the government invented what we now call the internet in the first place? I hear that they didn't want to have a single point of failure in their organizational structure, which could be taken out with a nuclear attack by the Soviets (or whoever else). Also the government didn't turn the internet into what it is today. I am willing to argue that it was precisely the relative freedom from government censorship and regulation which brought forth many wonderful things, which we now use via the web.
To be honest, right now I don't feel like the discussion is going anywhere, we're just bringing up circumstantial evidence supporting one claim or the other
Ok, I have just one last simple question to ask...
If you think that government (any government for that matter) is corrupt and all that, it would mean that it makes people lives worse. So, is it all in all a relative evil (i.e. without government our lives might have changed from bad to worse) or an absolute one (i.e. without government our lives would have changed beyond any doubt only for the better)? Take your pick!