> Government is defined by its monopoly on coercion — it cannot act but through aggression<p>That is not true. Government can provide incentives to people without enforcing that everybody follows those incentives.<p>Government is defined by its constitution (or lack thereof) which can be amended by democratic means. Democracy is not aggression. But government must and can coerce people not to cheat in elections. Else the powerful people with guns would show up on the voting sites and prevent minorities from voting.<p>Anarchy would probably mean that there are elections, right? Anarchy would simply mean there are no laws enforced except the rules of your local bullies, who might or might not call themselves "anarchists"<p>Of course a state can have too much power, that is the case in dictatorships. But without a democratic state enforcing the constitution the country would descend into dictatorship.<p>When voter-suppression happens even in democracies, how much more would it occur without any central authority ensuring constitution is not violated?