"First I’d like to ask you what your definition of ‘coercion’ is. My own definition of it is “the use or threat of force”, but your definition may be different.
Given this definition, the state is clearly coercive."
I would only amend your definition of coercion to include the word aggressive before the word force.
I understand the argument about legitimate ownership, and that the state does not legitimately own anything, and therefore may not set conditions of living somewhere as the landlord is free to do. However, does that mean that any action it takes is coercive?
Let’s say a man spends half of his workday pickpocketing people; the other half he spends selling bananas at a fruit stand. The fruit stand was bought with money he got from pickpocketing people. Does this mean that if I buy bananas from the fruit stand that I am being coerced?
Also, I should have worded my original post differently. My question was more about the will of the 18-year-old tenant. Are the conditions of his living there being imposed against his will? Could it really be that because the landlord owns legitimate property and the state does not, that the landlord is not doing anything against the tenants will (including threatening that if the tenant remains there and doesn’t follow the rules, he’ll be put in a cage in the basement) but the state is doing something against his will?