All states are tools of coercion

The argument

The claim is that coercion is structural to states rather than a feature of badly run ones, which is why it is held to apply to democracies as well. The underlying principle is about consent. Anything that is imposed on someone that they haven't personally agreed to is an infringement on their liberty. A rule a person has accepted binds them by their own choice; a rule imposed on them binds them regardless of what they chose, and the difference between the two is precisely the difference between agreement and coercion. Applied to states, this principle has a wide reach. Most people never vote on, or consent to, the vast majority of laws they are subject to. Statutes passed before they were born remain in force; laws passed in their lifetime are made by bodies they may not have voted for, on matters never put to them; and the body of regulation anyone lives under is far too large for any individual to have considered, let alone accepted. The democratic procedures supposed to supply consent operate at a level of generality that cannot deliver it for any particular rule. What makes this coercion rather than mere disagreement is the response to objection. If someone tries to object they face state coercion in the form of the police, prison, or even the army. The obligation is ultimately backed by force, which is what distinguishes a law from a request. All states are therefore coercive and anti-democratic even if they claim to be democracies. As nations are just another form of state, they inherit the same structure. Nations are therefore inherently coercive: nations mean coercion.

Context

Anarchists and hardcore libertarians reject all states as tools of coercion that limit individual liberty. Nations are just another form of the state.

Premises

Counter-arguments

Even if you disagree with some laws you have a duty to obey them as you benefit from the system as a whole. As long as you participate in and benefit from the system, you are giving passive consent to be governed. In proper democracies, people do give consent to their government and its laws by voting and choosing who will make and administer the laws. Even if people don't vote, they give consent passively by living within the society and enjoying its many advantages.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P1] People benefit from being part of the state; it is not simple coercion. [Rejecting P2] People do consent, either passively or actively, to the laws of society in democracies.