I already acknowledged it's nicer to live in "The West" than in Russia for example.
But if you start a credit union with the intention of genuinely competing with the banks, the government will "regulate" you out of business for being a nuisance to the banking cartel.
In other words, the true nature of our societies comes into view, and as I pointed out, that nature is the exact same everywhere. The difference is that you live under a polished turd, whereas Russians don't.
> The details matter.
In a fundamental sense, they don't matter at all. A ruler is a ruler, and a subject is a subject, and ruling over people always involves coercion.
Coercion is, by definition, against anyone's will, and so no one is genuinely fine with being ruled.
But again, the details matter. In a practical sense, there's no stark difference between mild coercion and compromise. One could argue that compromise is voluntary whereas, trivially, coercion is not, but this just discards a large part of human experience.
I got married voluntarily. I had kids voluntarily. I choose to have friends, rather than isolating myself. Although all of these decisions were voluntary, their constraints on my behaviour are more onerous than anything dictated by my government. So if government coercion is less restrictive than social coercion / compromise, what's the point of taking a dogmatic stance?
EDIT> No man is an island.