I think I may have formulated an argument in which adherents to Austrianism must advocate the abolishing of the state.
We get reserve inequality of value from the Austrian school which states that all exchanges between two parties in terms of goods or services. are a result of A valuing what B has more then what A originally has and vice versa. However, we cannot establish a voluntary willful exchange of goods if A is forced to trade goods/services with B under threat of violence. In the example, exchange A with ‘citizen’ and B with ‘government.’ Therefore, any exchanges with the government cannot be seen as the willful voluntary exchange of two parties. A trade between government and individual in the strict sense follows a line of logic that Austrianism is not a prononent of.
The way I’d put it is that state interventions are asymmetric, in that the reverse valuation only necessarily takes place on one side of the “exchange” (the grabber), whereas market transactions are ex ante symmetric, in that both sides value what the other party has more than they value what they have.
Any coercion whatever represents non-voluntary exchange. However, it would be ridiculous to say that, to be a consistent Austrian, you should oppose the coercive arresting of murders and rapists.