Receiving government money (even in salary) comes from behind the point of a gun

IntroductionI applaud PRO for initiating most of the debates in which he participates, as it is more difficult to substantiate a position than to argue contra one. I will thus first point out that my opponent has burden of proof for this debate.Furthermore, PRO makes it clear in the comments section that he is referring to "real guns", which is an extremely specific claim. I will give PRO the option of rescinding this line of argumentation...otherwise I will hold PRO to this level of specificity for this debate.Regardless, I understand the probable intent of this debate is that PRO seeks to advocate the archetypal libertarian moral position of "government = coercion" and that "coercion is wrong/immoral". I do expect my opponent to discuss the morality of his position in length. If he does not, then I will hold that the resolution is a meaningless statement centered upon the literal use of a gun when receiving a check in the mail from the government. This is prima facie false, as there is no one in my mailbox holding a gun when I open it, and I would move to win the debate if taken at such a literal level.Initial ImpressionsGiven that PRO argues a moral position centered around government coercion, I will now point out a couple glaring contradictions in PRO's opening before this debate continues.II1) PRO states that "If you get money from local, state or the federal government in any form, whether it be a welfare check, Social Security, an earned income tax credit, a paycheck, whatever, your money comes from behind the point of a gun," yet also states that there are certain exceptions, that "someone who has paid $1000 in taxes and loses their job and collects $1000 or less in unemployment" would not be receiving this money via such coercive means. The problem with this line of argumentation is that unemployment benefits are very, very similar in nature to Social Security in that both are programs in which a citizen pays into a mandatory insurance system with expectations of just "claims", either through unemployment or through reaching age of retirement respectively. Therefore, either both Social Security and unemployment benefits are both acts of coercion, or neither are. One is not the exception of the other.PRO's inability to properly delineate these two programs makes me wonder exactly how clear this resolution may be. If the resolution is unclear, I will ask that arguments be automatically be awarded CON due to a faulty resolution.II2) PRO states that this debate is "about how the money is collected." This ignores the fact that money itself is a tool of the government...therefore anyone who uses money in any fashion is either a participant in coercive activities, or no one is such a participant. The distinction between people who accept government handouts from people who do not is thus a false distinction. Again, one is not the exception to the other.II3) PRO then states that "When anyone receives a check from the government, it came from behind the point of a gun." Given my above argument in [II2], one could make the argument that anyone who uses money at all is under government coercion. I would then ask if what PRO is attempting to advocate is to abolish money altogether, as it is an integral part of our governing apparatus? If so, I will simply state that PRO's position is absolutely absurd.Another possible line of argumentation from [II2] is that no one who uses money is under coercion, that money is some sort of mutually agreed upon system that happens to be part of our governing apparatus. Personally I find this claim somewhat hard to believe given the nature of government, but it is much more believable and reasonable than to think that money received from an employer is somehow distinct from money received from the government, given that money itself is part of the government. Again, one is not the exception to the other.Initial ConclusionI will thus conclude that PRO's libertarian position is faulty. PRO rails against government handouts, not even recognizing that the method through which this handout is delivered is itself part of the governing apparatus. Even if this money was "legitimately earned" through non-governmental employment, the fact that wages are paid through government sanctioned money means that even "legitimately earned" wages are subject to the same kind of coercion as "illegitimate" government handouts. The libertarian bent against government becomes absurd at a certain point, and I will contend that PRO's resolution crosses this line. Government is pervasive. The dollar IS a part of government. Therefore, pay in any form involving dollars, either from your employer, from Uncle Sam, or from your cousin's sister's nephew's lemonade stand, involves government action and thus coercion under a libertarian view of morality. This view of morality is absolutely absurd.Relevant to this debate, if this libertarian moral position proves to be at its core untenable, I move to win this debate, as the distinction PRO is attempting to make between some sort of immoral basis of government action is itself untenable.