'any state regulation is inherently coercive' is a far cry from 'full coercive power of the state'. Obviously any regulation requires state coercion, that's how it works. So are you saying that anyone who advocates regulation of any kind is implicitly advocating the full force of the state being brought to bear on that particular problem? If so, I have news for you: That's very much not how this country works, at least.
If anything, we have a vast set of regulations that are enforced with an insufficient amount of coercive force, sometimes with no coercive force at all. Many of those said regulations are ignored by people like bankers who know that any defiance will at most be punished with small fines.
I feel that we're arguing semantics here. You've already said that any regulation requires state coercion, it seems we're just not seeing eye-to-eye on the "full force" portion of the statement.
When men with guns show up to lock you in a cage against your will I don't think it particularly matters if it was the "full force", half the force or a tiny percentage of the force of the state... the end result is the same.
As for the second part of your response, I suppose the level of necessary regulation and enforcement is another topic altogether and one which I didn't attempt to address in my initial comment.
If anything, we have a vast set of regulations that are enforced with an insufficient amount of coercive force, sometimes with no coercive force at all. Many of those said regulations are ignored by people like bankers who know that any defiance will at most be punished with small fines.