Advocates of systems of coercive paternalism argue that persons are, on average, incapable of or inadequate at achieving their interests. Given this, philosophers like Sarah Conly believe the best route is reducing the number of autonomous choices people must make and providing them only with the options geared most toward their interests. Against Conly, I argue that support for coercively paternalist governance shares structural features with support for imperialistic governance. Because both coercive paternalism and imperialism involve the same structural defects, that is, a lack of equality and reciprocity, political philosophers ought to condemn the former just as they do the latter.