Unless you live in a dictatorship like China, collective action will not be forced, but the outcome of a democratic process you can participate in.

Of course here it matters how local or remote the decision is. If one decides to build a bikepath in your city at a national level, then that will feel less democratic than if you make that decision at city level or neighborhood level.

But all collective action implies ceding some sovereignty. Collective and individual action is fundamentally at odds with each other.

If you collectively choose to see a movie, by going with a group to a movie theatre, it may not be the movie you preferred to have watched or which you would have individually picked.

Some may call that "force," but I think the key factor is that you choose to participate in a decision making where you knew your preference would not necessarily prevail. That is the tradeoff we make living in a democracy. We are given a voice but we must in return accept choices we did not prefer.

Here you find a dividing line between say a libertarian and a social democrat. A libertarians sees democracy as a necessary evil and wants the state to do as little as humanly possible, because a libertarian want individual action to be the primary way in which any choice is made.

A social democrat in contrast sees a much bigger role for collective action. Which is why the state plays a much bigger role. But how do you avoid steam rolling groups affected by democratic decisions? In Nordic social democracies you do that extensively by having most decisions done by having representatives from affected groups give input.

E.g. before making decisions on corporate policy, taxation etc, one has sit down meetings with representatives from corporations. This is how you minimize force in collective action. You make sure those who are affected by collective action have their voices heard. You let them be part of the decision making process.