What Counts As Coercion

A Formal Definition for Political and Moral Analysis

In Rights Are Forged, we argued that “Rights are preferences we are willing to enforce through coercion, and consider ethical to do so.” Coercion is a central concept in ethics, politics, and law—but it is rarely defined with precision. People use the word to describe everything from violent threats to emotional manipulation. This post offers a clear, minimal, and operational definition of coercion, grounded in agency and consistent with our framework.

Definition:

Coercion is the credible threat of actual harm to gain compliance.

This definition draws heavily from Robert Nozick, who offered a similar formulation in Anarchy, State, and Utopia, and refines it for clarity and applicability.

Let’s break it down and test each element with examples.


1. Credible

The threat must be believable to the person being coerced.


2. Threat

The harm must be conditional: if you do not comply, harm will follow.


3. Actual Harm

The threatened consequence must be something the coerced agent has reason to avoid.


4. To Gain Compliance

The purpose of the threat must be to induce specific behavior.


Composite Example (Meets All Criteria):

“If you don’t testify in court, we’ll expose your immigration status to authorities.”

Coercion.


Why This Matters

This definition draws a clean line between coercion and other forms of influence:

Coercion lives in the shadow of violence, but it preserves the illusion of choice. It is an attempt to shape agency through fear.

By clarifying what counts as coercion, we gain moral and political precision. We can distinguish legitimate defense from domination, voluntary agreement from coerced compliance, and ethical boundaries from brute power.