You have to make an argument that freedom is inherently good, which is not obvious to me. I think it's good to force people to do things in many situations
Your next sentence holds that assumption as obvious:
> I think it's good to force people to do things in many situations
Why do you think you should have freedom to even think, let alone decide, what is good for other people?
It's not necessarily good for each person, but good for society. Also I don't even know if I should have that freedom, that would be something we would have to philosophically investigate.
Why do you even think you should have the freedom to decide what's "good" in the first place?
All roads lead to freedom. There can be no tyranny without freedom to tyrannize - there's just no way around it.
This is literally what law is. A social construct to codify (and enable the enforcement of) what is deemed moral vs amoral.
Which implies that someone else had the freedom to decide what's good for you. Society is just a bunch of other people.
You appear to be trying to paint some kind on complex philosophical picture where it just simply doesn't exist.
Law is the codification, and ratification, of what society deems ethical/moral behaviour.
Unless you are about to start declaring some magic creates law, no shit it comes from people.
We generally need them to force people not to do a few really bad things (e.g. some basic laws), but in recent decades it feels that the concept of freedom has been under relentless attack and in an era without religion, the state is almost becoming a substitute for a god.
But these days it seems that our leaders are motivated almost entirely by profit. They will not do what is best for the average individual.
EDIT: the second and third paragraphs were added after I wrote this message
Or accept it as axiomatic.