Government is Inherently Violent

I respectfully point out that my opponent has not addressed my Argument from Consistency and will proceed assuming that he has conceded that the creation and maintenence of government is inconsistent with the nature of individual rights, and thus, is violent.***"But, when you do so, when under a government jurisdiction, when living in a certain Geo spatial area, you must follow the laws of the land. If one isn't happy about certain laws of the land, one has two options; leave the country or change the law."This is true. When one is born within a particular geographical area, one is told he must tolerate rules created by groups of individuals that claim that they have the ability to allocate rights that they themselves do not possess. This, of course, is obsurd. If individuals have the ability to allocate rights that they themselves are not in possession of, any criminal need only have a friend that excuses a murder by saying, "that's alright, I said he could kill them." Any pyromaniac needs only an acquiantance that excuses the destruction of another persons' property by saying, "calm down, I gave him permission." Any thief needs only one (or six) of the ten community members to say "it's alright, I/we gave him permision to steal those items."***I also would make the case that forcing someone to spend their resources -- that they acquired through use of time, labor, and funds -- on leaving a particular geographical area, lest they be forcibly extorted -- is violence. Saying to an individual who has labored for his products "you must concede ten percent of your wealth to me, because six of your ten neighbors gave me permission to take it for the good of the community" and offering the solution that "you may pick up and relocate your home, family, and make new friends if you disagree," is no less violent than those that rob at gunpoint. The ultimate punishment for refusing to budge is an armed attack on oneself and one's family, theft of one's property, and imprisonment or physical harm if one resists -- all whilst the individual in violation of the mob's decree has done no violence upon any other.Note also that not one individual that makes up the majority has the right to do all of the things that they supposedly give other individuals (whom we call government officials) the right to do. Again, one is entirely unjustified in attempting to allocate a right that they themselves do not have.***For a contract to be at all valid on any level, both parties must mutually agree to enter into said contract. By remaining in one's birthplace, one does not give consent to be violated by those who would unjustly violate them by claiming they've been granted rights that can not be granted. Holding such a belief would justify every act of government violence, theft, torture, etc. that has ever taken place domestically. Black Americans' segregation and forced usage of inferior facilities, schools, etc. would be justified. Mao's Great Leap Forward that lead to the starvation of millions of Chinese would be justified. The fining and/or imprisonment of individuals who consume a large soda in New York City would be justified. Those peaceful individuals simply should have left the country -- and indirectly forcing them to do so isn't violence in the slightest.***Whether one wishes to argue that government is a necessary evil is still a debate that can be had, but to claim that government is not firmly embedded in a foundation of coercion and violence seems unjustifiable.