While reading an excerpt of Kant's Metaphysique of morals I was shocked by the conclusion drawn from it.
Resistance that counteracts the hinderig of an effect promotes this effect and is consistent with it. Now whatever is wrong is a hindrance to freedom in accordance with universal laws. But coercion is a hindrance or resistance to freedom. Therefore, if a certain use of freedom is itself a hindrance to freedom in accordance with universal laws (i.e., wrong), coercion that is opposed to this (as a _hindering_ of a _hindrance_ to _freedom_) is consistent with freedom in accordance with universal laws, that is, it is right. Hence there is connected with right by the principle of contradiction an authoriization to coerce someone who infringes upon it.
Kant, 'Introduction to the Doctrine of Right, §D', The Metaphysics of Morals, rev. ed., tr. Mary Gregor, Cambridge: CUP, 2017: 28.
It seems that the problem is, for Kant, to know what legitimizes resistance to the use of my freedom? For Kant it is the same principle of resistance to this resistance, using the same law.
So I deduce that Kant by the negation of the principle of authority in the social organization and the refusal of any constraint stemming from the institutions based on this principle. This is justified by the fact that resistance to resistance is justified by the same law.
I deduce that Kant is an anarchist or libertarian.
Where did I go wrong?