Your assertion hinges on the assumption that the government exists autonomously, apart from the people it represents. If my landlord claimed to represent me and my interests with the money I gave him, I would expect to have a say in how he spent it. This is the charter of any non-totalitarian government, and specifically that of all of the modern democracies.
You are confusing ownership with being a customer. Customers pay rent/taxes. Owners exercise control. The charter of modern democracies promise equal ownership based on birth or residency, not on whether or not you pay rent. Or rather, the preamble states the goal of equal ownership. The fine print in the thousands of pages of legal code give actual ownership to an oligarchy of the civil service, congressional committees, and organized factions. You may like to get an ownership share based on paying rent, but you have no legal or moral claim to it, just as you have no legal or moral claim on controlling your landlords' spending.
BTW, you are also confusing totalitarian with authoritarian. Authoritarians deals with the management structure of a government, totalitarian with the scope of its activities. The US government in 1800 was non-authoritarian, non-totalitarian. Stalin was authoritarian and totalitarian. USG in 2009 is non-authoritarian, totalitarian. Louis the XIV was authoritarian, non-totalitarian.
