"The argument that any form of government is inherently violent, because it uses violent physical force against those who disobey a mandate, is a sound argument."
I agree with this to an extent, but I would take it one step further to say that all forms of large scale human civilizations are inherently violent, because they require a locally unsustainable level of resources (and often labor) to make them possible, forcing them to push outward (or exploit classes within).
The Hadza of Tanzania are a pretty good example that illustrate people living in a truly communal, collective, and relatively nonviolent society. I don't think that it's any accident that they typically limit themselves to bands of a few dozen people and that they're self-reliant hunter gatherers.
There seems to be threshold in human societies at which the trouble starts- too many people to support, too many people to work together, and too many resources required to sustain a sedentary group...and the conquests and wars begin. The magic number seems to be pretty low if you study cultural anthropology and hunter-gatherer societies.
I think that anarcho-primitivists put forth the most cogent critique in this regard.
(I believe this belief of mine led someone to call me the Unabomber in an old thread!)
The problem is, there's not much of a solution if civilization itself is the root of so much of the mass exploitation and violence we see in this world.