We must coerce people into respecting each other's rights.
In a completely free society, we must assume the potential of infinite diversity. If we don't, our prejudices would prevent us from respecting the uniqueness of everyone's needs. This would make society quite unfree by definition.
By infinite diversity, you are referring to individual rights. Why are you claiming individual rights have infinite diversity? They may have infinite interpretations depending on infinite instances of disputes, but just because two people disagree on a right does not mean the disagreement cannot be resolved. It is between the two responsible parties to resolve disagreements. Creating government means a one-size-fits-all solution which destroys all demand for private contract resolution institutions, and also prevents innovation in this theoretical industry which could exist if not for government.
Rights are a construct created by man to relate to his fellow man. The tribe, through social interactions, agrees on the rights of it's members. They meet another tribe with slightly different rights, but the amazing thing is how similar they are! This is because to survive, one set of rights is better than another. For example, if the chief has the right to have his way with any female in the tribe, lots of strong young boys will start popping out and the tribe will gain strength. Rights are arbitrary, but survival is based on choosing the best set of rights for your current circumstance.
Americans live in an empire which has oppressed foreigners by stealing the value of their labor through fiat currency. Bitcoin enthusiasts should fully understand the implications of a world reserve currency controlled by a centralized entity. Imagine if every barrel of oil had to be purchased in bitcoins then converted to local currencies. Bitcoin holders would be pretty happy! Well imagine further if you could control the volume of bitcoins in circulation? Holy shit you have more power than anything in the world. The US has more power than anything in the world right now because of their world-wide reserve fiat currency.
Aggression is fundamental to survival.
If someone needs food, and has no way to get it without killing or stealing, why shouldn't he do so? Without this basic survival instinct, humans would not have survived long enough to invent property rights.
I have to agree with this point, but if he tries to kill for food, he may be killed himself. He is initiating aggression and that cannot be justified morally, but that would not stop him or anyone else if that was the ONLY option. But let's ratchet up the scenario, what if without a $75,000 hospital procedure you will die, is it then justified to steal? Of course not. Will people do it to survive? Yes. The question is how should we address this concern we have of starving people. Should we try to find a real sustainable solution to the problem, or should we force every person to throw in some money to give to people who need food. If you look at the result today in any meaningful way, you will see that force is not working as hunger in America has increased significantly.
Finally, if government is so inherently evil, how does it arise in the first place?
The body of people in society share the same moral principles and government enforces those principles. At first government serves the people, but the opportunity to take control and exploit the vast reserves of power government has is just too hard to pass up. Eventually nefarious entities gain control of the power center and all hell breaks loose (a few decades or centuries later). Once the body of people line their moral philosophy based on universal ethics, government is exposed as the fraud it is and can be cast aside. Until that happens let's learn the ways of peaceful interaction, and let's constantly expose the violence that is often hidden in interactions.
) 
