Laws and Initiation of Force

https://www.zeroaggressionproject.org/uncategorized/where-is-the-gun/
When someone says There ought to be a law, ask them this question . . .
Wheres the gun?
They will probably give you a blank, uncomprehending stare, and say, What?
This is the response you want. It denotes confusion. And confusion can be the first step
on the road to clarity.
Answer their confusion like this
Youre advocating a law to control your fellow citizens. But what if they disobey your
law? Will an agent of the state point a gun at them and force them to comply?
Hemming and hawing may commence. Stuff like this, Well, we wont point a gun at
them. Well just fine them if they dont comply.
What if they refuse to pay the fine?
Then well take it from their bank account.
And perhaps leave them destitute, homeless, or hungry?
Its for a good purpose. They should have complied.
But what if they think their NON-compliance is for a good
purpose? What if they think compliance would be bad, destructive, or even evil? And
what if they try to promote their vision of the good by hiding their money so that you
cant seize it? Does the gun show up then?
Im not sure what you mean?
What I mean is this If someone doesnt agree that your law has a good purpose, and
they refuse to comply with it, and they refuse to pay your fine, and they hide their money
so you cant seize it, will men with guns arrive to force them to submit?
You may get silence and another blank stare, but press the issue
Is there any point in the enforcement process for your law where agents of the state
show up with guns to force obedience?
If the person is really advocating a law then he or she will have to
admit that theres a gun at the end of the enforcement process. Getting to this point is
crucial to the task of critical thinking. We cannot think clearly about the nature of The
State and The Stateslaws without finding and taking note of the gun that lies behind
all Statism.
Its one thing for laws to respond to initiated force for defensive or corrective
purposes. Thats the purpose of the governmental process. Its quite another thing for
laws to initiate force against peaceful citizens, based on some scheme of social
engineering.
Retaliating against violence is the function of true government.
Initiating force is the nature of Statism.
Finding the gun helps to clarify what is really being proposed.
The question Wheres the gun should become as well known as Wheres Waldo?
Now heres the final statement in the dialog
Do you really think your idea for improving the world is so important that people should
be compelled to obey it at the point of a gun?
The person advocating the law may continue doing so, but
because you drew attention to the gun, he or she can no longer be ignorant of the
violence and arrogance inherent in the proposal.

Also, I think it is reification fallacy to talk about the state committing violence. The state doesnt commit violence. People
do, and the belief in the state is what motivates them to commit violence.
Imagine this conversation:
What a lovely painting, who is the artist?
The state painted this.
Or this:
Lets change the channel, who moved the remote for the tv?
The state moved it.
Why do the responses look so absurd? What is the logical fallacy being committed by the answerer?
The state is only a mental abstraction. Just an idea that exists in the mind. It doesnt pass laws. It doesnt commit
violence, PEOPLE do those things. When we ascribe the actions of actual physical people to imaginary ideas, we are denying
the facts and accepting a fictional construct instead of the reality.