from The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, 4th Edition
- n. The act or practice of coercing.
- n. Power or ability to coerce.
from Wiktionary, Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License
- n. Actual or threatened force for the purpose of compelling action by another person; the act of coercing.
- n. Use of physical or moral force to compel a person to do something, or to abstain from doing something, thereby depriving that person of the exercise of free will.
- n. A specific instance of coercing.
- n. Conversion of a value of one data type to a value of another data type.
from the GNU version of the Collaborative International Dictionary of English
- n. The act or process of coercing.
- n. The application to another of either physical or moral force. When the force is physical, and cannot be resisted, then the act produced by it is a nullity, so far as concerns the party coerced. When the force is moral, then the act, though voidable, is imputable to the party doing it, unless he be so paralyzed by terror as to act convulsively. At the same time coercion is not negatived by the fact of submission under force. “Coactus volui” (I consented under compulsion) is the condition of mind which, when there is volition forced by coercion, annuls the result of such coercion.
from The Century Dictionary and Cyclopedia
- n. Compulsion; forcible constraint; the act of controlling by force or arms.
- n. Power of restraint or compulsion.
from WordNet 3.0 Copyright 2006 by Princeton University. All rights reserved.
- n. using force to cause something to occur
- n. the act of compelling by force of authority
And when we use the term coercion, nothing is farther from our thoughts than the carrying of blood and fire among those whom we still consider our brethren of South Carolina.
The court applies what it calls a coercion standard, a coercion test, which is to say that nobody is alleging that the daughter of Michael Nubo (ph) Nudo (ph) who is described in the court briefings as an atheist.
Calling inappropriate laws "coercion" is neither necessary nor sufficient to make that case.
Yet if coercion is officially banned, how will Americans come to a consensus about what kind of coercion is and isn't appropriate?
Forcible coercion is probably not required in most circumstances: hints, looking disappointed, pretending to be sensitive and caring for a few days while telling her it is the right thing to do, making it clear that you would not be interested in her if she had a child, pretending you would love her less with a child, etc. is probably all that is necessary.
That is equivalent to getting rid of the secret ballot, in that it invites coercion from the pro-union workers.
In fact, coercion is more of a guy thing, so in that sense libertarianism is a female philosophy.
Without a social agreement as to what activities are unacceptable, the definition of what constitues coercion is very narrow indeed (perhaps only assault and the threat thereof), and the property right extends no further than what one can carry on one's person, and in some cases, maybe not even that far.
Do you really think coercion is needed to reach a solution to coordination problems?
There are some situations where it is legitimate to coerce or enlist some authority in coercion on your behalf, and some where it is not.