The Edge Cases of Coercion

Introduction

The core thesis: Coercion is justified only if it is pre-consented, defensive, or compensatory. This provides a clean principle, but to be robust it must withstand hard cases. Below is a systematic stress test across twenty-five scenarios. Each case now explicitly includes the mechanism, verdict, and pressure point.

1. Blackmail with True Information

• Mechanism: Threat of reputational harm via disclosure.

• Verdict: Illegitimate coercion. No consent; not defensive; not compensatory.

• Pressure Point: Threat involves otherwise lawful act. Raises threat/offer distinction.

2. Whistleblowing Demands

• Mechanism: Threat of exposure to stop harmful conduct.

• Verdict: Legitimate if remedy-oriented; illegitimate if rent-seeking.

• Pressure Point: Distinguishing remedy vs. exploitation.

3. Platform Bans for TOS Violations

• Mechanism: Denial of access under contractual terms.

• Verdict: Justified with clear consent and exit; dubious with monopoly power.

• Pressure Point: Quality of consent in essential services.

4. Government Taxation

• Mechanism: Threat of penalty for nonpayment.

• Verdict: Dubious; justified only if narrowly defensive/compensatory.

• Pressure Point: Territorial monopolies weaken consent.

5. Quarantine in Epidemics

• Mechanism: Threat of restriction of movement.

• Verdict: Justified defensive coercion if proportional and evidence-based.

• Pressure Point: Thresholds for proportionality and evidence.

6. Civil Contempt Orders

• Mechanism: Threat of incarceration until compliance.

• Verdict: Justified if tied to obligations with due process.

• Pressure Point: Safeguards against abuse.

7. Plea Bargains

• Mechanism: Threat of harsher punishment to induce plea.

• Verdict: Often illegitimate due to asymmetry.

• Pressure Point: How to prevent stacking charges as leverage.

8. Employer Non-Compete Agreements

• Mechanism: Threat of legal/economic penalty for leaving.

• Verdict: Presumptively illegitimate unless narrow, time-bounded, compensated.

• Pressure Point: Balancing trade secrets vs. agency.

9. Union Strikes

• Mechanism: Collective withdrawal of labor.

• Verdict: Not coercion unless paired with threats of harm.

• Pressure Point: Line between economic pressure and coercion.

10. Consumer Boycotts / Social Ostracism

• Mechanism: Coordinated withdrawal of commerce or reputation.

• Verdict: Not coercion unless threats of harm are added.

• Pressure Point: At what point reputational campaigns become coercion.

11. Doxxing Without Explicit Threat

• Mechanism: Exposure of private info inviting third-party harm.

• Verdict: Coercive if foreseeable harm is likely.

• Pressure Point: Foreseeability criterion.

12. Hostage-Taking

• Mechanism: Explicit threat to life.

• Verdict: Illegitimate coercion.

• Pressure Point: None; clear case.

13. Ransomware Attacks

• Mechanism: Threat to delete/encrypt data.

• Verdict: Illegitimate coercion.

• Pressure Point: Confirms inclusion of property/information harms.

14. Parental Discipline

• Mechanism: Conditional denial of privileges.

• Verdict: Not coercion when welfare-bounded; coercion when threats of harm used.

• Pressure Point: Guardianship carve-out.

15. Service Denial Rules (“No shirt, no service”)

• Mechanism: Conditional provision of service.

• Verdict: Not coercion if alternatives exist; coercion if monopolistic.

• Pressure Point: Defining “meaningful alternatives.”

16. Mandatory Arbitration Clauses

• Mechanism: Waiver of court rights under threat of denial of service.

• Verdict: Dubious; pre-consent often nominal.

• Pressure Point: Standard for valid consent in essential services.

17. Algorithmic Shadow Bans

• Mechanism: Stealthy reduction of visibility/reach.

• Verdict: Coercive if leveraged for compliance.

• Pressure Point: Transparency and appeal rights.

18. Economic Sanctions

• Mechanism: Threat of economic harm to populations.

• Verdict: Often illegitimate; only justifiable if narrowly targeted.

• Pressure Point: Collective punishment vs. targeted measures.

19. Contracts Signed Under Duress

• Mechanism: Consent given under immediate threat.

• Verdict: Illegitimate coercion.

• Pressure Point: Anti-duress safeguard.

20. Deterrence Threats

• Mechanism: Precommitment to retaliate.

• Verdict: Justified defensive coercion if proportional.

• Pressure Point: Preventing disproportionate overreach.

21. AI Shutdown Threats

• Mechanism: Threat of system termination.

• Verdict: Defensive if AI is a tool; murky if agent.

• Pressure Point: Agency threshold for AI.

22. Religious Excommunication

• Mechanism: Loss of membership and reputation.

• Verdict: Not coercion unless paired with threats of harm.

• Pressure Point: Social vs. coercive boundaries.

23. Police “Command Presence”

• Mechanism: Gestural threat of force.

• Verdict: Coercion; justified only for immediate safety.

• Pressure Point: Defining legitimate contexts for implied threats.

24. Civil Asset Forfeiture

• Mechanism: Threat of property seizure without conviction.

• Verdict: Illegitimate coercion absent due process.

• Pressure Point: Due process as essential safeguard.

25. Forced “Rehabilitation” for Dissent

• Mechanism: Threat of confinement unless ideological compliance.

• Verdict: Illegitimate coercion.

• Pressure Point: Highlights dangers of paternalistic domination.

Cross-Cutting Refinements

1. Threat vs. Offer: Coercion occurs when refusal leaves the target worse off than status quo.

2. Expanded Harms: Economic, reputational, informational harms count when leveraged.

3. Credibility & Foreseeability: A threat is credible if foreseeable harm is likely.

4. Consent Quality: Must be informed, voluntary, and with meaningful alternatives.

5. Proportionality & Minimality: Justified coercion must be narrow, time-bounded, and minimal.

6. Monopoly/Essential Services: Heightened legitimacy standards.

7. Duress & Asymmetry: Consent under duress or extreme imbalance is invalid.

8. Guardian/Child Carve-Out: Governance is permissible if welfare-bounded and proportionate.

A Decision Test

1. Is there a conditional proposal that makes non-compliance worse than status quo?

   • If no → not coercion.

   • If yes → go to 2.

2. Is the threatened harm credible or foreseeable?

   • If no → not coercion.

   • If yes → go to 3.

3. Does it meet one of the justification criteria?

   • Pre-consented?

   • Defensive?

   • Compensatory?
     If none → illegitimate.

4. Safeguards (all must apply):

   • Proportionality

   • Due process

   • Time-boundedness

   • Accountability
     If fail → illegitimate. If pass → justified.

Conclusion

The stress test shows the original thesis is broadly sound but needs refinements: threat/offer clarity, expanded harms, foreseeability in credibility, and stricter standards for consent, proportionality, and monopolies. With these additions, the principle remains coherent: Coercion is justified only when it preserves or restores agency, never when it dominates.