>Of course. But my objection is that libertarians like to imply that violence coercion is inherently bad for rhetorical effect when criticising government.

I was implying that using threats of violence against non-violent people engaging in voluntary trade with other consenting adults is wrong.

>Well clearly we disagree. I think asking participants in society to pay for the benefits it affords, and discouraging anti-competitive practices are perfectly reasonable uses of violent coercion

So you're willing to use violent coercion against non-violent people for their refusal to pay a debt they did not voluntarily assume and/or for their engaging in too much voluntary trade with other consenting adults. Your moral framework is essentially sociopathic.