I heartily agree that I, and all of us oppose coercion, because it strips us of what makes us human, our choices, our free will. A difference lies in that I oppose coercion in the state, not the state because it has coercion. I am sure that your definition does include all groups that use coercion and rightly so, but, to me, it is like killing the whole man because he has cancer, or trashing the only light bulb in the world because it only comes on 7 out of 10 times. The principles of American government have been such a light to the world, even in their in ability to resist coercion and monopolization and imperialism they stood for something that, previous to it the world had never seen, government by the people. If you cannot agree that the state is the ideal in an ideal world, you will find no opposition in me, but that is not my argument, I wish to say that what these United States stood for was and is the best system playing its part on the backdrop of history. The United States will fail and hurl itself into some sort of fascism, but the principles by which it were founded are the best principles of government that have ever been actualized, if freedom and liberty are our standards of appraisal. Back in 1788, the idea of framing a form of government where freedom and liberty for its people, as a priority, had never ever been discussed in more than intellectual circles. Delicate thought was put into every word of our constitution and in every check and balance. The system has worked because it acknowledges certain social realities while doing all in its power to control them and to use them for the betterment of all. Even as I believe in certain joint, good intentions, I do not hold back any reservation in denouncing what has been done to country. Politics used to be a duty not unlike going to war, because the benefits of such should be nearly equal, but now it is an accent to power and money.  But I cannot agree that the Constitution has no merit because it is flawed by those who try to live by it. No, it is the people who are flawed and unpredictable, not the system, and the framers of the constitution knew this and put every difficulty they could in disallowing society to become a great demonstration of entropy in motion, while attempting to maintain a feather-weighted balance of freedom. And even then it was not perfect, it had no Bill of Rights, and the people spoke (through their representatives) and the Constitution was not passed until the bill was included, an incredible example of how the system worked in favor of the people.

I did say "people" meaning a majority, but like you, I disagree that this means that every individual has consented. But imagine with me for a moment what it would be like if every time someone disagreed with something the constitution said that it would have to be changed until they could consent to it. What would happen? Of course, all those people who had consented to the previous version would be upset and want it changed back, and so on. If I must, I will ask you this rhetorical question. How are decisions made in your own home? Do you vote for a majority? Do you act as dictator? Do you allow everyone to do as they think best? Of course, this is an unfair question because, of course, all of these are applied at different times and in different circumstances, but the same is true in any organized group of people who have to make decisions, and in a group of so-called equals the first option is the most obviously appropriate. In the same way not every person can write his own constitution and live by it, such would be futile for all people because if it is an individual constitution it is an inherently individual dictatorship seeing as you are the only one making decisions for yourself, and all dictators have some basis for how they make decisions, namely, what is best for them, which would be the same in this case, on average.

As for examples of your free consent it's rather like sin. When you decide to steal from a candy store, have you consented to sin? I believe the candy is the proof of concession. In other words, when you pay taxes you are consenting, when you take a tax return you are consenting, when you stop at a stoplight you are consenting, and when you enlisted in the selective service you consented. And I believe this consent to be free in that, like the candy store, you can walk out of the store; certainly not an easy thing to do, especially when you benefit from the state. Can you stop being a member without losing life, liberty, and property, possibly, but certainly not the life, liberty, and property ensured by the state. Civil rights are individual but protection of those rights is a communal act; what rights you had were benefits of being part of the community that tries to protect them, part of the state. Can you imagine a state in which all rights and benefits were offered to all who wanted them? The reality is you don't have to; we see what it is doing to our nation right now through massive immigration, both legal and illegal. In order to have rights you must also be willing to respect other peoples rights, and to make sure everyone's rights are respected some sort of judgment has to be done on whose rights have been violated if they have been violated. Thank goodness, we don't have to make these kinds of decisions in a spiritual sense, but in a "God-less" world such decisions have to be made by us.

Certainly, the state doesn't give liberty but it should try very hard to protect it. You are right, the state does restrict liberty, but should only restrict those liberties that threaten the liberty of others. If your liberty to kill or liberty to steal or even coerce were not limited you would inevitably be more likely to take the liberty, to live, to posses property, and be free-thinking away from someone else, and for the whole world to have all liberty and not use it to take liberty from others is the exact opposite of the world I see out my own window everyday.