I could be wrong, but here is my assessment. This is purely my opinion, not an assertion of facts:
The application of logic to any debate of the conflict between freedom and forced association(or rape) is a fool's errand.
The essence of the conflict, I believe, is 'nuanced.' It is a combination of factors (based on facts), such as:
1] We are not clones. We are similar, but not equal in all respects, including physical, mental / mental / intellectual / emotional features. There is a gradient of capabilities in mankind in all of the above.
2] Modernity is every year increasingly more complex; the rate of acquisition new knowledge is or has long ago vastly outpaced the ability of any one of us during our entire lifetime to acquire the sum of all past and new knowledge. We are thus, with every increasing year, more exposed? dependent? impacted by? the unscrutable calculus and algebra of strangers far over the horizon. All of us.
3] Our genetic makeup is a factor; not all of us are wired the same, have the same weightings/values in certain innately wired wetbits, whatever we would like to call these wired in influences: the God gene: the herd mentality gene. The lone wolf gene. The empathy gene.
4] So there are lots of influences on our political choices, but can't use the word 'politics' without defining it: Politics: the art and science of getting what we want from others using any means short of actual violence. Mega-Politics is the superset that includes force/violence. The desire to forcefully, not via free association, ride others in the tribe like a tribal property pony is a political want, but so is the desire not to be ridden like a pony. Both are examples of 'what we want from others.' To be left alone except under rules of free association is also a political want. But there isn't perfect symmetry on those political axes...
5] Commerce is also a scheme for getting what we want from others; win-win exchange of value for value. But commerce is insufficient to cover all of the wants and needs of the tribe, for the reasons above; it is not universally accepted as the preferred means of getting what we want from others. There is a civil gradient of that, too:
(I put modern politics somewhere between begging and crime, because it is for sure nowhere near commerce or asking...)
6] Not everyone reacts the same to these influences. For example...
7] Since the 1800s, certain Malthusian beliefs based on our comprehension of geometric growth have influenced our politics, especially by way German philosophers of that 19th century. (No relation, but Professor Albert Bartlett/UnivofCo has made a name for himself by clearly illustrating the mathematical consequences of geometric growth.)
8] Pure existential terror-- an extreme form of the above beliefs. Coming of age in a modernity that we barely comprehend, that must appear like 'Magic' to some, with no understanding at all at how we ended up like this, miles above the ground. Imagine waking up at the age of 16, and becoming aware that you are miles out to sea, in deep water, far above the ocean floor, floating...with no idea how to swim. And yet, you are indeed floating. You have some vague awareness of the groundtruth that covers 98% of the earth-- the abject poverty and brutishness on the streets of Bangladesh and much of the world beyond the thin resort crust that most call 'overseas' ... and coupled with an abject cluelessness about how it is we arrived in this state of being, far out to sea, some ... panic, and flail, and act like existentially terrified creatures in a floundering lifeboat, climbing over the backs of others in order to survive.
In such a state, such existentially terrified creatures 'want what they want' -- and no about of logic is going to apply, or calm them down, or help them to to understand their circumstances.
And so, whatever it takes. Safety in numbers -- even if those numbers are forced against their will to have their bodies be our human liferaft-- even as the urge to tie their bodies together into a forced association mass could be exactly what is keeping those we claim we need to forcefully associate with from keeping us all afloat; we claim we depend on them absolutely, which is our justification for chaining them to our needs, in our panic, but that panic and the mass of our great numbers may be exactly what dooms our survival. But the urge to survive could be the greatest value of all, superseding all others when our other faculties fail, including our reason.
And to varying degrees, these existentially terrified children are more or less obvious. The less obvious are calm, and access at least the robes of logic and reason, and make their arguments, ironically, to attack logic and reason, but ultimately do not embrace anything like logic, in fact, regard cold logic and reason as the enemy of what they want, because their absolute is ultimately what they want.
But that is just an opinion.