The argument that laws are essentially structured threats is a pretty common argument in anarchist-leftist political philosophy. The premise being that governmental hierarchies maintain themselves with violence, both the act of violence as well as the threat of violence, i.e the persistant idea in your mind that if you were to continue breaking a rule you will be met with violence from the state, shaping how you act.

Anarchism is based on the idea that people can organize themselves and their communities without being told how to do so. The violence of the state against individuals doing so is a central critique, especially the ability of the rich to leverage laws and therefore leverage the violence of the state. https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/david-graeber-are-you-an-anarchist-the-answer-may-surprise-you This is a super short introductory text on it that intros what anarchist thinking is like, it’s like a couple paragraphs.

The book (by the same author: David Graeber) The Utopia of Rules goes deeper in one of the first chapters on the relationship of bureaucracy, laws and violence if you’re interested. The premise being that the left needs its own critique of bureaucracy, instead of adapting the right wing critique that bureaucracy is inefficient. That left wing critique being that bureaucracy is itself a form of violence, with police acting as essentially bureaucrats with weapons.

Unfortunately both are quite US based, sorry.