Fact-checked by Grok 2 weeks ago

Coercion

Coercion is the intentional use of threats or physical force by one agent to compel another agent to perform or refrain from an action that the latter would not otherwise choose, thereby restricting the victim's range of acceptable options.^[1] This distinguishes coercion from persuasion, which operates through rational appeal or information provision, and from mere offers, which expand choices without imposing penalties for refusal.^[2] Philosophers have debated its essence since at least Thomas Aquinas, who viewed coercive acts as involving external compulsion that overrides internal will, though modern analyses emphasize the normative structure of threats that alter cost-benefit calculations in decision-making.^[3] In political philosophy, coercion underpins discussions of authority and legitimacy, particularly regarding the state's capacity to enforce laws through sanctions, which some theorists, drawing on Max Weber's framework of legitimate violence, see as foundational to governance yet requiring justification to avoid arbitrariness.^[4] Key distinctions include the role of moral wrongfulness: while some accounts hold that only wrongful threats qualify as coercive—thus excluding, for instance, a mugger's demand but potentially including unjust taxation—others adopt an enforcement model where any credible threat enforcing compliance suffices, irrespective of the coercer's moral standing.^[2]^[5] Empirical studies in behavioral economics and psychology further reveal how perceived coercion erodes voluntary consent, as seen in experiments where threats reduce reported autonomy even when compliance occurs.^[6] Controversies persist over borderline cases, such as economic pressures or paternalistic interventions, where critics argue that labeling them coercive conflates structural incentives with intentional duress, potentially undermining analyses of free markets or welfare policies; conversely, first-principles reasoning highlights that any deliberate narrowing of options via harm threats violates causal autonomy, rendering outcomes non-voluntary regardless of aggregate utility.^[7] In legal contexts, coercion features in defenses like duress, where it excuses criminal acts under imminent threat, but scholarly consensus stresses the need for immediacy and proportionality to avoid excusing premeditated wrongs.^[8] These debates underscore coercion's dual role as both a tool for order and a risk to individual agency, informing critiques of institutional power where empirical evidence of bias in enforcement—such as disproportionate application in regulatory states—challenges claims of neutrality.^[9]

Definitions and Conceptual Foundations

Core Elements of Coercion

Coercion entails a relational dynamic where one party, the coercer, imposes a credible threat of harm or penalty on another, the coercee, to elicit compliance with a demand that the coercee would otherwise reject. This threat typically involves a sanction—such as physical injury, economic loss, or deprivation of liberty—that the coercee seeks to avoid, thereby narrowing the coercee's effective choice set to the point of involuntariness. Philosopher Robert Nozick formalized this in his 1969 analysis, defining coercion as a proposal where the coercer threatens to perform an action detrimental to the coercee unless the latter undertakes an atypical behavior, distinguishing it from mere bargaining by the threat's role in overriding autonomous decision-making.^[10] Central to coercion is the element of wrongfulness in the threat, which separates it from legitimate influence; the coercer's proposed sanction must violate moral or legal norms, such as rights infringements, rather than constitute a baseline consequence of natural circumstances. For instance, Nozick emphasized that threats succeed in coercing only if they reference outcomes worse than the status quo, exploiting the coercee's vulnerability without the coercer bearing equivalent risks. Legal doctrines echo this, requiring in duress cases that the threat be "improper"—e.g., unlawful violence or extortion—rather than hard-nosed negotiation, as affirmed in common law precedents where economic pressure alone fails without illegitimacy.^[2]^[11] Another core element is involuntariness of compliance, arising from the absence of viable alternatives; the coercee must reasonably perceive no escape from the threat's consequences, rendering consent non-autonomous. In contract law, this manifests as the victim's subdued will under duress, voiding agreements where threats coerce signatures, with courts assessing factors like immediacy and proportionality—e.g., a 2022 analysis highlighting that mere financial distress does not suffice without the threat's coercive potency. Empirical studies on coerced confessions similarly underscore this, showing that perceived inescapability amplifies involuntariness, as in psychological experiments where subjects yield under sustained pressure simulating real threats.^[12]^[13]^[14] Finally, credibility and power asymmetry underpin coercion's efficacy; the threat must be believable, often leveraging the coercer's superior position, whether physical, institutional, or informational. This asymmetry ensures the coercee internalizes the risk, as Nozick noted in cases where the threatener's capacity to execute the sanction tips rational calculus toward submission. Legal elements reinforce this, mandating proof of intent to induce fear through forbidden acts, such as in statutes defining coercion as threats causing prejudice via detention or harm.^[10]^[15] Coercion differs from persuasion in that the latter involves appeals to reason, evidence, or emotion that leave the recipient with genuine alternatives and the capacity for voluntary endorsement, whereas coercion employs threats of harm to eliminate viable options and compel compliance against the agent's preferences.^[16] For instance, philosophical analyses emphasize that persuasion requires mutual understanding and can lead to internalized conviction, while coercion relies solely on the coercer's power to impose costs, rendering the action involuntary even if outwardly similar.^[17] Unlike manipulation, which often operates through deception, selective information, or exploitation of cognitive biases to subtly shape choices without overt threats, coercion demands explicit conditional threats that credibly alter the cost-benefit structure of decisions, making refusal predictably more harmful than acquiescence.^[18] Empirical ethics studies in contexts like healthcare highlight that manipulation may erode autonomy indirectly via psychological leverage, but coercion's hallmark is the intentional creation of a "hard choice" where the coerced party perceives no reasonable escape, distinguishing it from mere influence or inducement.^[19] Coercion must be differentiated from direct physical force, as the former typically involves prospective threats of harm—such as violence, deprivation, or penalty—sufficient to override will without immediate application of power, whereas force entails actual, contemporaneous physical compulsion that bypasses agency altogether.^[20] Legal and philosophical frameworks underscore this by noting that coercion preserves a formal voluntariness (the coerced can technically refuse but at prohibitive cost), in contrast to force's negation of even apparent choice, as seen in analyses of state enforcement where threats precede rather than supplant action.^[21] In legal contexts, coercion overlaps with but is not identical to duress; duress defenses focus on imminent threats of death or serious injury prompting criminal acts, often requiring immediacy and lack of alternatives, while broader coercion encompasses economic, psychological, or relational pressures that may not meet duress's evidentiary thresholds but still vitiate consent in contracts or testimony.^[8] This distinction arises in criminal law, where duress excuses conduct under acute human compulsion, but coercion extends to systemic or marital dynamics without necessitating physical peril, as clarified in doctrinal reviews separating excuse from broader involuntariness claims.^[22] Coercion contrasts with compulsion, particularly internal compulsions like addictions or obsessions that drive behavior absent external threats; external compulsion akin to coercion involves imposed pressures, but philosophical treatments distinguish coercion's volitional impairment via wrongful threats from compulsion's potential natural or self-generated origins, emphasizing the coercer's intentionality and moral wrongfulness.^[23]

Historical and Philosophical Development

Ancient and Classical Theories

In Plato's Republic, the sophist Thrasymachus contends that justice consists solely in the advantage of the ruling class, enforced through the superior strength of the stronger party, portraying political authority as inherently coercive.^[24] Socrates counters this view by advocating a conception of justice grounded in rational harmony and the good of the whole, yet Plato's ideal polity integrates coercion as a mechanism wielded by the guardian rulers to suppress dissent and preserve the hierarchical order, distinguishing it from mere brute force by aligning it with philosophical wisdom.^[25] This framework reveals a tension: while dialectic aims at non-coercive persuasion through logical refutation, the state's stability requires compulsory measures against those resistant to reason, as seen in the "noble lie" that persuades the masses but backs enforcement with punitive authority.^[26] Aristotle, in Nicomachean Ethics Book III, delineates coercion within the analysis of voluntary and involuntary actions, defining truly coerced acts as those where external force compels the agent against their will, rendering them non-voluntary and thus exempt from moral praise or blame.^[27] He introduces "mixed" cases, such as jettisoning cargo during a storm under duress, where the action appears compelled yet retains an element of deliberate choice due to the absence of prior deliberation under threat; extreme coercion, however, that overwhelms human nature—Aristotle deems it absurd, for instance, to coerce matricide—nullifies voluntariness entirely.^[28] In Politics, Aristotle extends this to civic life, viewing legitimate coercion as a corrective force in constitutions that promote virtue, but warning that excessive reliance on it in flawed regimes like tyranny undermines true freedom, which he equates with rational self-governance rather than mere absence of external compulsion.^[29] The Sophists, exemplified by Gorgias, contrasted coercion with the power of logos (persuasive speech), positing rhetoric as a non-violent means to influence outcomes, akin to a "drug" that sways minds without physical force, thereby elevating persuasion as a democratic alternative to tyrannical imposition.^[30] In Roman thought, Cicero in De Legibus frames coercion within natural law, asserting that the republic's laws derive authority from reason and the common good, legitimizing punitive enforcement—"let the welfare of the people be the supreme law"—to restrain vice and secure communal safety, provided it aligns with eternal principles rather than arbitrary power.^[31] These classical theories thus privilege reasoned persuasion where possible but acknowledge coercion's necessity in curbing irrationality, with legitimacy hinging on its subordination to objective justice rather than the wielder's might.^[32]

Modern Philosophical Frameworks

In the mid-20th century, analytic philosophers shifted toward formal definitions of coercion, emphasizing its distinction from persuasion or rational inducement through the mechanism of threats that restrict an agent's effective options. Robert Nozick's 1969 essay "Coercion" articulated a non-moralized framework, identifying coercion in proposals where one party threatens to impose a sanction (distinct from offering a benefit) unless the target complies with a demand, provided the target prefers compliance over the sanction, the proposer believes this preference exists, and the proposer possesses the capacity to execute the threat. This approach focuses on the prudential pressure exerted by altering the target's baseline alternatives without evaluating the moral legitimacy of the threat itself, influencing subsequent debates on voluntariness in contracts and consent.^[10] Building on such structural analyses, Alan Wertheimer's 1987 monograph Coercion advocated a moralized theory, contending that a threat qualifies as coercive only if the coercer's demand or sanction is itself immoral or unjustified, as mere pressure from feasible options does not inherently undermine autonomy unless the coercer's action violates normative standards. Wertheimer surveyed legal and everyday cases, such as duress in contracts, to argue that coercion excuses or invalidates actions primarily when the coercer's wrongdoing exploits the victim's vulnerability, rather than solely through the threat's efficacy. This normative integration critiques purely descriptive models like Nozick's for overlooking causal responsibility in moral assessment, though it invites disputes over whose moral framework determines "wrongfulness."^[33] Libertarian philosophers, extending Nozick's insights in works like his 1974 Anarchy, State, and Utopia, frame coercion as the initiation of physical force or credible threats against persons or property, inherently illegitimate unless defensive, thereby challenging state mechanisms like taxation as paradigmatic violations of self-ownership. This view prioritizes non-aggression as a first-order constraint, positing that structural coercion erodes voluntary exchange and individual rights, with empirical implications for evaluating institutional power. In contrast, some contemporary accounts distinguish "pressure" models (focusing on worsened options) from "enforcement" models (emphasizing conditional sanctions), as explored in defenses of the latter for capturing coercion's blame-shifting effects without moral qualifiers.^[2]

Types and Mechanisms

Physical and Direct Coercion

Physical coercion entails the immediate application or credible threat of physical force to compel an individual to act or refrain from acting in a manner contrary to their preferences, distinguishing it from subtler influences by its tangible and imminent nature. This form typically involves overpowering the target's physical autonomy, such as through restraint, assault, or the display of weapons, thereby narrowing the range of viable options to compliance. Legal definitions, as in U.S. immigration policy on human trafficking, characterize it as including actual or threatened physical acts causing harm or the use/threatened use of weapons, emphasizing the direct override of volition.^[35] Mechanisms of physical and direct coercion operate through kinetic force or its proximal menace, often exploiting asymmetries in strength or armament to enforce obedience without prolonged negotiation. For instance, in armed robbery, a perpetrator may press a gun to a victim's body to demand property handover, rendering non-compliance physically perilous in the moment. Similarly, physical restraint—such as binding or immobilizing—prevents evasion, as seen in cases of forced labor where captors use chains or violence to extract work. Philosophers like Neil MacCormick differentiate "direct physical coercion," where force physically causes the action (e.g., manipulating a person's hand to sign under duress), from threat-based variants, noting the former eliminates even momentary choice.^[36]^[37] This type contrasts sharply with psychological or economic coercion, which rely on anticipated future harms or deprivations manipulable over time, whereas physical direct coercion activates instantaneous survival imperatives, often bypassing cognitive deliberation. Empirical observations in criminal contexts reveal its high immediacy but potential limitations: overt force may yield compliance yet undermine perceived legitimacy of the coerced act, as victims report actions as involuntary due to terror rather than persuasion. In military or law enforcement applications, such as using working dogs or combat holds for restraint, it prioritizes rapid control over consent, though ethical critiques highlight risks of escalation or injury.^[38]^[37]^[36]

Psychological and Indirect Coercion

Psychological coercion involves the strategic application of mental, emotional, and perceptual manipulations to compel an individual to act against their preferences, often by eroding autonomy, inducing dependency, or exploiting vulnerabilities without resort to physical force. This form of coercion targets cognitive and affective processes, creating perceived or real constraints on choice through tactics like threats to self-esteem, relationships, or future prospects.^[39] Unlike physical coercion, it relies on the victim's internalization of pressure, making compliance appear voluntary while masking the underlying compulsion.^[40] A foundational model for these tactics is Biderman's Chart of Coercion, derived from analyses of prisoner-of-war interrogations in the 1950s and extended to contexts such as human trafficking and intimate partner abuse.^[41] The framework identifies eight interdependent techniques: isolation to sever external support; monopolization of perception to dominate the victim's information environment; induced debilitation and exhaustion through sleep deprivation or overload; threats of harm to valued entities; occasional indulgences to foster intermittent reinforcement; demonstrating omnipotence to instill helplessness; degradation to undermine self-worth; and enforcing trivial demands to habituate obedience.^[42] Empirical applications, such as in trafficking studies, show these methods reinforce submission even absent physical restraints, with victims reporting heightened psychological distress and compliance rates exceeding 70% in controlled vulnerability scenarios.^[39]^[43] Coercive control, as conceptualized by sociologist Evan Stark, integrates psychological coercion into a sustained regime of domination that regulates a victim's everyday routines, resources, and interactions to prevent escape or resistance.^[44] Stark's model, based on over 300 clinical cases from the 1990s onward, emphasizes how abusers deploy surveillance, rules, and punishments to entrap victims, predicting outcomes like depression and PTSD more effectively than isolated violent incidents alone.^[45] In sociological terms, this extends to indirect mechanisms where coercion operates through proxies or ambient pressures, such as reputational damage via social networks or enforced isolation from family, compelling behavioral alignment without direct confrontation.^[46] For instance, gaslighting—a tactic of distorting reality to induce self-doubt—functions indirectly by leveraging the victim's reliance on the coercer's narrative, with surveys of intimate partner violence survivors indicating its prevalence in 40-60% of coercive relationships and correlation with eroded decision-making capacity.^[47]^[48] Psychological responses to these pressures include reactance, a motivational state triggered by perceived freedom threats, which can manifest as defiance or covert resistance, explaining coercion's frequent failure rates in non-absolute power dynamics.^[49] Experimental evidence from paired threat versus natural-cost conditions demonstrates reactance elevates non-compliance by 20-30%, as subjects prioritize autonomy restoration over concession.^[50] Prolonged exposure, however, may induce learned helplessness, where repeated uncontrollable stressors diminish initiative, as observed in animal models and human analogs yielding compliance increases of up to 50% under sustained indirect manipulation.^[51] These dynamics underscore coercion's causal pathway: initial resistance yields to erosion of agency when indirect tactics amplify uncertainty and dependency, with meta-analyses of abuse cohorts linking such processes to long-term cognitive impairments like reduced executive function.^[52]

Economic and Structural Coercion

Economic coercion entails the strategic imposition or threat of economic costs by one actor, typically a state, on another to elicit a specific policy change or behavioral compliance.^[53] This mechanism differs from persuasion or incentives by relying on the target's vulnerability to financial harm, such as disrupted trade, asset freezes, or market exclusions. Empirical analyses of post-World War II cases indicate that economic sanctions succeed in achieving their primary objectives in approximately 30% of instances, with success more likely when targets face high economic dependence on the coercer or when sanctions are multilateral.^[54] A prominent historical example is the 1973-1974 Arab oil embargo, initiated by OPEC members against the United States and other nations perceived as supporting Israel during the Yom Kippur War, which quadrupled global oil prices and triggered recessions in targeted economies through supply cuts and production reductions.^[55] More recent applications include China's 2020-2021 restrictions on Australian exports of barley, wine, and coal—imposing tariffs up to 200% and outright bans—following Australia's call for an independent inquiry into COVID-19 origins, which reduced Australia's GDP by an estimated 0.5-1% in affected sectors.^[56] Such measures often provoke countermeasures or alliances that dilute their impact, as seen in Russia's pivot to alternative markets after Western sanctions imposed in 2022 reduced its EU energy exports by over 90% but failed to halt its Ukraine operations.^[54] Structural coercion, by contrast, emerges from entrenched socioeconomic systems that constrain individual agency without direct interpersonal threats, effectively narrowing the range of feasible choices to those aligned with systemic imperatives.^[57] In labor markets, for instance, pervasive poverty and limited mobility can compel workers to accept hazardous or underpaid conditions, as alternatives like unemployment lead to destitution; studies in low-income contexts show participation rates in high-risk jobs exceeding 70% among those with household incomes below subsistence levels.^[58] This dynamic is amplified in global supply chains, where developing economies' reliance on export-led growth structurally binds governments and firms to foreign investors' terms, often yielding concessions on labor standards or environmental regulations to avert capital flight. Within state apparatuses, taxation exemplifies structural coercion, as it mandates resource transfers under penalty of legal enforcement, funding public goods while redistributing wealth in ways that some economists and philosophers classify as involuntary extraction.^[59] Libertarian theorists, such as Robert Nozick, contend that any taxation beyond minimal state functions—particularly progressive rates averaging 25-40% in OECD countries—constitutes coercion akin to forced labor, since noncompliance risks asset seizure or imprisonment, irrespective of democratic consent.^[60] Empirical data from public finance models reveal that higher tax coercion correlates with reduced voluntary compliance in low-trust environments, where evasion rates climb to 20-30% in nations with perceived overreach, underscoring the tension between fiscal necessity and individual liberty.^[61] Critics of expansive welfare states argue this embeds path-dependent traps, where benefits tied to low earnings discourage upward mobility, with U.S. data showing marginal tax-benefit cliffs reducing work incentives for 15-20% of low-income households.^[62]

Legal Dimensions

Coercion in Criminal Law

In criminal law, coercion, often termed duress, serves as an affirmative defense excusing criminal liability when a defendant commits an offense under an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury from another person, rendering the act involuntary. This defense acknowledges that genuine coercion can negate the voluntary element required for mens rea in many crimes, provided the defendant had no reasonable opportunity to escape or seek protection. Courts require proof that the threat was immediate and that a person of reasonable firmness would have succumbed to it, distinguishing it from mere economic pressure or past harms.^[63]^[64] The elements of the duress defense typically include: (1) a specific threat of imminent death or grievous bodily harm directed at the defendant or a close associate; (2) the defendant's reasonable belief in the threat's immediacy, with no safe avenue for retreat or authorities' intervention; and (3) proportionality, where the coerced act's harm does not exceed the threatened harm. In federal U.S. law, defendants must also demonstrate a good-faith attempt to surrender or notify authorities once the duress subsides. Jurisdictions vary: common law traditions, influential in the U.S. and UK, apply duress to most offenses but exclude it for murder, attempted murder, or treason, reflecting the principle that no threat justifies taking an innocent life. Some U.S. states like Georgia codify similar limits, barring duress for capital offenses, while others permit partial mitigation reducing murder to manslaughter.^[65]^[66]^[67] Limitations underscore duress's narrow scope to prevent abuse; self-induced threats or negligence precipitating the danger void the defense, as do threats from accomplices in the crime. Empirical application shows rarity in convictions: successful claims often involve direct threats like gunpoint coercion in robberies, but courts scrutinize subjective fears against objective reasonableness, with juries deciding credibility. Critics argue the defense inadequately addresses prolonged coercive control, such as in human trafficking, where victims may face barriers to proving immediacy, though some reforms propose expansions for such contexts without broadening to intentional homicide. In statutes defining coercion as a crime itself, such as New Jersey's, it criminalizes threats to restrict freedom via harm or property damage, distinct from the duress defense.^[68]^[69]^[8]

State-Sanctioned Coercion and Monopoly

State-sanctioned coercion refers to the legal authorization of coercive measures by governmental institutions, typically grounded in the state's claimed monopoly on the legitimate exercise of physical force within its territory, as articulated by sociologist Max Weber in his 1919 lecture "Politics as a Vocation," where he defined the state as "a human community that (successfully) claims the monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force within a given territory."^[70] This monopoly distinguishes the modern state from other entities by centralizing coercive authority in public institutions, such as police, courts, and military, while prohibiting private actors from exercising equivalent force without facing criminal penalties.^[71] Legally, this is enshrined in constitutional frameworks; for instance, the U.S. Constitution's Article I, Section 8 empowers Congress to "provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions," effectively delegating coercive enforcement to federal and state authorities.^[72] In practice, state-sanctioned coercion manifests through mechanisms like arrest and incarceration, where law enforcement agents, acting under statutory authority, may detain individuals suspected of crimes, backed by the threat or application of physical restraint. For example, under U.S. federal law, Title 18 U.S. Code Section 3109 permits "knock and announce" entries with force if necessary for warrant execution, reflecting codified permission for coercive intrusion to uphold legal order. Taxation exemplifies non-physical but structurally coercive state power, enforced via penalties including asset seizure; the Internal Revenue Code (26 U.S.C. § 6331) authorizes the IRS to levy upon property for unpaid taxes after notice, with non-compliance leading to forced collection, demonstrating how fiscal policy relies on the state's monopoly to extract resources without voluntary consent.^[73] Conscription, or compulsory military service, further illustrates direct coercion; during World War I, the U.S. Selective Service Act of 1917 drafted over 2.8 million men, upheld by the Supreme Court in Arver v. United States (1918) as a legitimate exercise of war powers, prioritizing collective defense over individual autonomy.^[74] The monopoly dimension is maintained through legal prohibitions on private coercion, criminalizing acts like vigilantism or unauthorized detention as assault or false imprisonment; in common law jurisdictions, private individuals lack the state's sovereign immunity and must justify force under narrow self-defense doctrines, such as those outlined in Model Penal Code § 3.04, which limits retaliation to imminent threats. This exclusivity is not absolute, particularly in armed societies; the U.S. Second Amendment, interpreted in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) to protect individual self-defense rights, implies a partial delegation of coercive capacity to citizens, challenging a pure state monopoly by allowing private firearm ownership for personal security, with approximately 393 million civilian-owned guns as of 2017 estimates from the Small Arms Survey.^[75] Nonetheless, states enforce their primacy by regulating militias and outlawing private armies, as seen in federal statutes like 18 U.S.C. § 2384 prohibiting seditious conspiracies that undermine governmental authority.^[76] Empirically, this framework sustains order but invites scrutiny over legitimacy; data from the Bureau of Justice Statistics indicate that U.S. state coercive actions, including over 10 million arrests annually as of 2019, correlate with compliance rates exceeding 90% in routine policing scenarios, though excessive force incidents—documented in 1,127 police killings in 2023 by Mapping Police Violence—highlight tensions between sanctioned monopoly and public perceptions of overreach. Internationally, similar principles underpin treaties like the UN Charter's Article 2(4), prohibiting member states from using force against others' territorial integrity while reserving self-defense rights, thus extending the monopoly logic to interstate relations.^[77] Critics, including legal scholars, argue that such monopolies risk entrenching inefficiency or abuse absent competitive checks, as evidenced by historical failures like failed states in Somalia (1991–2006) where monopoly collapse led to warlord proliferation and a 70% drop in GDP per capita.^[78]

Applications in Politics and Society

Governmental and Institutional Coercion

Governmental coercion encompasses the use by state apparatuses of threats of physical force, penalties, or sanctions to compel individuals, groups, or institutions to conform to directives, laws, or policies. This authority stems from the state's asserted monopoly on the legitimate exercise of violence within a defined territory, a concept central to Max Weber's definition of the state as a "human community that (successfully) claims the monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force."^[70] Such coercion operates through hierarchical enforcement mechanisms, including police, courts, and administrative agencies, which escalate from warnings to arrests, asset forfeitures, or incarceration for non-compliance. Taxation exemplifies fiscal coercion, where governments mandate payments under implicit or explicit threats of reprisal. Non-payment triggers audits, liens, garnishments, or imprisonment, as seen in systems like the U.S. Internal Revenue Service's enforcement powers.^[61] A 2020 factorial survey experiment involving 3,000 U.S. respondents found that perceived state coercion—such as the threat of audits and penalties—strongly predicts voluntary tax compliance, exerting a positive effect comparable to moral imperatives against evasion, while reciprocity perceptions (e.g., fair government spending) showed negligible influence.^[61] This underscores coercion's role in sustaining revenue extraction, which funded 45% of U.S. federal expenditures in fiscal year 2023, totaling $4.4 trillion in individual income taxes alone.^[61] Conscription represents direct personnel coercion, obligating citizens to military service on pain of criminal penalties. Historical implementations, such as U.S. drafts during the Civil War (inducting 2 million men) and World Wars I and II (over 4 million combined), relied on legal compulsion backed by fines, imprisonment, or labor alternatives for resisters.^[79] Modern variants persist in nations like Israel and South Korea, where evasion incurs up to several years' imprisonment; for instance, South Korea reported 1,200 draft dodgers prosecuted annually as of 2022.^[80] These measures centralize state power by mobilizing human resources, often justified by national security but critiqued for overriding individual consent. Beyond fiscal and military domains, institutional coercion appears in regulatory mandates and surveillance. Environmental agencies, for example, impose compliance through fines exceeding millions—U.S. EPA penalties totaled $1.6 billion in 2022—or operational shutdowns for violations.^[81] Prisons and probation systems enforce behavioral control via physical confinement or monitored restrictions, with U.S. incarceration rates reaching 531 per 100,000 adults in 2023, sustained by coercive sentencing guidelines.^[80] Empirical analyses reveal that moderate coercion levels can backfire, fostering resentment and reduced efficacy in compliance, as moderate threats yield lower success rates than severe or minimal ones in controlled behavioral models.^[82] This highlights coercion's double-edged nature: effective for short-term enforcement but potentially eroding long-term legitimacy when over-relied upon.

Coercion in Welfare Systems and Taxation

Taxation in contemporary welfare states operates as a mechanism of economic coercion, wherein individuals are compelled to surrender a portion of their income or assets to the government under threat of severe penalties, including asset seizure, fines, and incarceration. In the United States, for fiscal year 2020, 68.7% of federal tax fraud offenders received prison sentences, with an average term of 16 months, demonstrating the state's deployment of criminal sanctions to ensure compliance.^[83] This enforcement relies on the government's monopoly over legitimate force, transforming voluntary economic activity into a taxable obligation backed by potential violence or deprivation of liberty. Philosophers like Robert Nozick have characterized such taxation of earnings as akin to forced labor, arguing that it involuntarily appropriates a fraction of an individual's productive time and output for redistribution, without the worker's consent to the specific uses.^[84] Welfare systems amplify this coercion by channeling tax revenues into redistributive programs that create structural incentives discouraging labor market entry, particularly through means-tested benefits that impose high effective marginal tax rates on additional earnings. Empirical analyses of U.S. welfare programs, such as Aid to Families with Dependent Children prior to reforms, reveal that recipients often face "welfare cliffs" where benefits diminish sharply with income gains, reducing overall labor supply among eligible populations.^[85] Longitudinal studies confirm that such programs exert a negative effect on work incentives, with single mothers showing decreased employment probabilities due to the opportunity costs of forgoing subsidies.^[86] These dynamics foster dependency, as the coercive extraction from producers subsidizes non-participation, altering individual choices via the implicit threat of benefit loss intertwined with the broader tax enforcement regime. Critics contend that this fusion of taxation and welfare lacks genuine voluntary consent, distinguishing it from private charity where donors retain control and recipients face no enforced obligations. While social contract theorists posit implicit agreement through societal participation, empirical realities of non-exit—such as citizenship-based taxation without practical opt-out—undermine claims of voluntariness, positioning welfare-funded redistribution as a state-enforced transfer rather than mutual aid.^[87] Data on tax evasion deterrence further illustrate the coercive underpinning, with perceived risks of imprisonment correlating to higher compliance rates among populations informed of penalties.^[88]

Empirical and Psychological Aspects

Effects on Individuals and Compliance

Coercion often induces psychological reactance, a motivational state characterized by resistance to perceived threats to one's freedom, leading individuals to restore autonomy through defiance rather than sustained compliance.^[89] Empirical experiments demonstrate that coercive threats, compared to persuasive appeals, provoke this reactance, resulting in lower compliance rates as subjects actively oppose the imposed demands to reassert volition.^[90] This effect persists across contexts, including policy enforcement, where overt coercion backfires by amplifying opposition compared to voluntary incentives.^[89] On an individual level, exposure to coercion correlates with elevated risks of mental health impairments, including post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and depression, as evidenced by meta-analyses of coercive control victims showing moderate associations with these outcomes.^[91] Victims report heightened distress, humiliation, and superficial engagement with demands, often prioritizing resistance over internalization of the coerced behavior.^[92] In psychiatric settings, perceived coercion during involuntary treatment exacerbates emotional turmoil and undermines long-term therapeutic alliance, with studies linking it to poorer recovery trajectories and negative emotional sequelae.^[93]^[94] Compliance under coercion tends to be short-term and fragile, yielding initial obedience but fostering resentment that erodes adherence over time. For instance, involuntary psychiatric hospitalizations predict reduced medication compliance and treatment engagement in follow-up periods, as individuals perceive diminished agency and externalize responsibility for coerced actions.^[95] Neuroimaging studies of obedience paradigms reveal that coerced behaviors attenuate neural markers of ownership and moral accountability, enabling compliance without full endorsement, yet this detachment contributes to post-coercion rebound effects like non-compliance or psychological disengagement.^[96] In broader applications, such as organizational or legal mandates, coercion achieves superficial conformity but fails to cultivate enduring voluntary alignment, often necessitating continuous enforcement due to underlying reactance.^[97]

Resistance and Moral Responses

Psychological reactance theory explains resistance to coercion as a motivational response to perceived threats to personal freedom, prompting individuals to restore autonomy through defiance or counteraction.^[89] Empirical tests demonstrate that coercive threats elicit reactance, increasing opposition such as support for retaliatory measures against the coercer, beyond mere natural costs of compliance.^[90] This mechanism underlies failures of coercion in experimental settings, where threats amplify resistance rather than ensuring submission.^[50] Obedience studies reveal variable resistance to coercive authority. In Stanley Milgram's 1961-1962 experiments, 65% of participants in the remote condition administered shocks up to the maximum 450 volts under experimenter directives, implying 35% defied full compliance at some stage, often citing ethical concerns.^[98] Similarly, Solomon Asch's 1951 conformity experiments showed participants yielding to incorrect group judgments on only 36.8% of critical trials, with non-conformity rates averaging 63.2%, particularly when even one dissenter supported the correct perception, reducing conformity by up to 80%.^[99] These findings indicate that while social and authoritative pressures induce compliance, intrinsic judgment and peer dissent foster resistance.^[100] Moral convictions drive resistance by framing coercion as a violation of fundamental right and wrong, rendering attitudes immune to overriding influences like authority or majority opinion.^[101] Individuals holding strong moral convictions exhibit heightened intolerance for coercive policies and greater defiance against them, as seen in studies where opposition to torture persisted despite peer pressure from majorities endorsing it.^[102] Philosophically, moral responses to coercion emphasize its impairment of voluntary agency, positioning resistance as a defense of autonomy and moral responsibility, rather than mere self-interest.^[60] Coercive power, contrasted with legitimate authority, heightens antagonistic cognitions and enforced but resentful compliance, underscoring moral objections to non-consensual imposition.^[103] Resistance is further enabled by external factors, including tangible resources like economic independence and social supports such as emotional networks, which counteract coercive dependencies in abusive or controlling contexts.^[104] In tax compliance experiments, coercive authority reduced payments and accelerated decisions compared to legitimate authority, reflecting moral and reactance-based pushback against perceived overreach.^[105] Overall, these empirical and moral dynamics highlight coercion's limits, where resistance preserves individual integrity against external compulsion.

Debates and Criticisms

Libertarian Critiques of State Coercion

Libertarians argue that the state inherently relies on coercion to enforce its authority, initiating force against individuals who have not consented to its rule, in violation of the non-aggression principle (NAP), which prohibits the initiation of aggression—defined as the uninvited use of physical force or threats thereof—against persons or their property.^[106]^[107] The NAP, central to libertarian ethics, permits force only in defensive response to prior aggression, positioning voluntary cooperation as the moral foundation of society while deeming state actions like mandatory compliance with laws or regulations as illegitimate impositions.^[108] A core critique targets the state's territorial monopoly on force, which Max Weber described as the ability to legitimately wield violence within a defined area, but which libertarians view as an unjust aggregation of power enabling systematic aggression rather than genuine legitimacy derived from consent.^[109] Murray Rothbard, in The Ethics of Liberty (1982), contends that this monopoly facilitates aggression through taxation, which he equates to theft since it extracts resources under threat of penalties without voluntary exchange, rendering increased taxation a direct escalation of coercive aggression.^[110] Similarly, Lysander Spooner argued in No Treason (1867) that no individual implicitly consents to state coercion via birth or residence, as such "contracts" lack explicit agreement and thus cannot justify the state's claim to authority over persons.^[111] Robert Nozick, in Anarchy, State, and Utopia (1974), critiques redistributive policies as coercive entitlements that violate individual entitlements to their holdings, even while defending a minimal state; he illustrates this with the Wilt Chamberlain example, where voluntary transactions aggregate wealth disparities that patterned redistribution forcibly disrupts, undermining liberty.^[112] Libertarians extend this to broader state functions, such as conscription—viewed as involuntary servitude—and regulatory mandates, which compel behavioral conformity under penalty, contrasting sharply with market-based alternatives where participation remains optional.^[113] Empirical observations of state overreach, like the U.S. government's 2020 enforcement of COVID-19 lockdowns affecting over 300 million people through fines and arrests, underscore how such monopolies prioritize collective mandates over individual autonomy, often without proportional justification.^[114] Critics within libertarianism, including anarcho-capitalists like Rothbard, reject even minimal states as unstable transitions to fuller coercion, advocating polycentric law where private defense agencies compete without geographic monopolies, potentially reducing net aggression through market incentives.^[115] This framework posits that state coercion not only infringes rights but also distorts incentives, fostering dependency and moral hazard absent in voluntary systems, as evidenced by historical precedents like medieval Iceland's stateless legal order, which maintained order via reputational enforcement rather than centralized force.^[116]

Justifications for Coercive Authority

Justifications for coercive authority primarily derive from the observed necessity of centralized enforcement to sustain large-scale social cooperation and minimize violence. Empirical data from anthropological studies indicate that non-state societies, such as tribes or clans lacking a monopoly on force, exhibit violent death rates ranging from 15 to over 500 per 100,000 population annually, compared to 0.5 to 10 per 100,000 in modern states with effective coercive institutions.^[117] This disparity underscores the causal role of state coercion in suppressing interpersonal and group conflicts that proliferate in decentralized settings, as evidenced by higher homicide rates in regions with weak governmental control, such as parts of Colombia before strengthened state presence reduced paramilitary violence through territorial consolidation.^[118] Societies with longer histories of state institutions similarly demonstrate lower contemporary homicide rates, suggesting that coercive authority evolves as a mechanism to institutionalize order beyond personal loyalties.^[119] Social contract theory provides a foundational philosophical rationale, positing that individuals implicitly or hypothetically consent to a sovereign's coercive power to escape the insecure "state of nature" characterized by mutual predation.^[120] Thomas Hobbes argued in Leviathan (1651) that without an absolute authority wielding the sword, life would be "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short," necessitating transfer of natural rights to a commonwealth for collective security—a view echoed in analyses of how consent legitimizes coercion to enforce contracts and deter defection in iterated social interactions.^[73] Critics of empirical assumptions in such theories note potential circularity, yet the theory aligns with evidence from limited-access orders where elites use coercion to stabilize rents and prevent elite fragmentation, enabling broader social dynamics.^[121] Utilitarian frameworks further justify coercion by weighing its net welfare benefits, contending that enforced rules against harm—such as prohibitions on theft or aggression—yield greater overall utility than permissive anarchy, where free-riding and externalities erode cooperation.^[122] John Stuart Mill's harm principle, articulated in On Liberty (1859), permits state intervention to prevent injury to others, extending to coercive taxation for public goods like defense, which empirical models show require mandatory compliance to overcome collective action problems.^[123] In consequentialist terms, the state's monopoly on violence reduces total societal costs from predation, as decentralized coercion in "natural states" sustains order only through personalized elite pacts prone to breakdown, whereas institutionalized force supports impersonal exchange and growth.^[73] Public justification approaches emphasize that coercive measures gain legitimacy when reasonable persons could endorse them as necessary for reciprocal security, aligning with democratic variants where majority consent proxies for universal acceptability.^[74] While academic discourse on these rationales often presumes state efficacy without sufficient cross-cultural testing—potentially influenced by institutional biases favoring centralized models—the convergence of historical data on violence reduction and game-theoretic insights into enforcement dilemmas substantiates coercion's role in scalable order.^[124] Absent such authority, coordination failures amplify, as seen in fragile states where partial coercion correlates with persistent disorder rather than voluntary harmony.^[118]

Empirical Challenges to Coercion Narratives

Empirical analyses of tax compliance reveal that voluntary adherence, driven by social norms, trust in institutions, and perceptions of fairness, accounts for a substantial portion of revenue collection, challenging narratives that portray coercive enforcement as the primary driver of obedience. Studies utilizing the "slippery slope" framework demonstrate that high trust in authorities fosters willing cooperation, while overreliance on audits and penalties yields diminishing returns and can erode intrinsic motivation.^[125] IRS research further quantifies this, estimating that non-coercive factors like taxpayer education and equitable treatment enhance compliance rates beyond what deterrence alone achieves, with preliminary surveys indicating small businesses respond more to procedural justice than to fear of punishment.^[126]^[127] Psychological reactance theory provides mechanistic evidence against the efficacy of coercion, positing that perceived threats to personal autonomy trigger oppositional behavior that offsets or exceeds the policy's incentives. Experimental studies confirm this dynamic, where subjects exposed to coercive demands exhibit heightened refusal rates compared to voluntary appeals, even in scenarios offering net benefits, as reactance amplifies beyond rational cost-benefit calculations.^[89] This effect manifests in real-world applications, such as vaccine mandates, where observed resistance correlates with perceptions of imposed choice rather than health risks alone, underscoring how coercion narratives overlook endogenous motivational backlash.^[128] The U.S. "war on drugs," spanning over five decades since 1971, exemplifies coercive policy failure through persistent drug availability, escalating black-market violence, and mass incarceration without commensurate reductions in consumption or addiction rates. UN assessments conclude the approach has "failed, completely and utterly," with empirical data showing no sustained decline in global drug production or use despite trillions in enforcement expenditures; instead, prohibition correlates with inflated harms like overdose spikes from adulterated supplies.^[129] Economic analyses reinforce this, documenting how criminalization sustains illicit economies rather than dismantling them, as supply-side coercion merely shifts production to more remote areas without addressing demand.^[130] Similarly, historical alcohol prohibition (1920–1933) saw consumption rebound post-repeal, with crime rates tied to enforcement rather than abstinence, highlighting coercion's inability to supplant voluntary behavioral shifts.^[130] In psychiatric care, coercive interventions like involuntary commitment or medication show limited empirical support for long-term efficacy, often worsening patient mental health outcomes due to heightened trauma and non-adherence. A 2024 meta-analysis found no reliable evidence that such measures improve recovery trajectories over voluntary alternatives, with coercion linked to elevated post-discharge relapse rates.^[131]^[132] These findings contest institutional narratives framing coercion as a necessary safeguard, revealing instead a pattern where autonomy-respecting approaches yield superior compliance and results. Comparisons between nudges—subtle environmental cues altering defaults without mandates—and overt coercion further undermine claims of the latter's superiority. Field experiments indicate nudges achieve compliance in domains like savings or organ donation at rates comparable to or exceeding punitive mandates, sans reactance-induced resistance; for instance, opt-out retirement plans boost participation by 30–90% without penalties.^[133] Coercive diplomacy studies echo this, documenting frequent strategic misfires where threats provoke defiance rather than concession, as adversaries recalibrate based on perceived resolve rather than isolated pressures.^[134] Collectively, these data challenge the presumption that state coercion reliably enforces social goods, evidencing instead contexts where minimal intervention or voluntary mechanisms suffice or outperform.

References

[1]
Coercion, Manipulation, Exploitation - Oxford Academic
Aug 1, 2014 · Coercion is understood as either having no choice or as having no acceptable choice. Manipulation is the steering or influencing of the choices ...<|separator|>
[2]
[PDF] THE ENFORCEMENT APPROACH TO COERCION
TARTING IN THE 1960S, THE CONCEPT of coercion has received sustained attention from philosophers, resulting in a panoply of at- tempts to explain its nature ...
[3]
[PDF] Coercion - Oxford University Research Archive
conditions of coercion, e.g. success in the use of force, are relevant in some contexts, i.e. coercionblame-reducing, but irrelevant in others, coercion( ...
[4]
[PDF] Is Coercion Necessary for Law? The Role of Coercion in ...
Hughes notes that while many legal philosophers have questioned the view that coercion is central and necessary for law, this view continues to be presupposed ...
[5]
Toward A Theory of Coercion | Canadian Journal of Philosophy
Jan 1, 2020 · coercion is an essentially normative concept whose 'conditions of application contain an ineliminable reference to moral rightness or wrongness' ...
[6]
[PDF] Authority and Coercion - PhilPapers
Thus, the principal task of political philosophy is to define the moral limits of the state's authority. Questions about coercion are regarded as secondary, and ...
[7]
[PDF] Force and Coercion
Physical force is sometimes taken to be one form of coercion – physical coercion. ... political philosophy, this criticism looks plausible. Murray Rothbard, for ...
[8]
[PDF] Reconceiving Coercion-Based Criminal Defenses
Among legal scholars, the predominant understanding of coercion is the “wrongful pressure” model, which states that coercion exists when the coercer wrongfully ...
[9]
[PDF] Rob Hughes Governing Without Coercion1 Governments make laws ...
Questions about when government should use or threaten coercion are important. The first question of political philosophy, however, is the question how and when ...
[10]
Robert Nozick, Coercion - PhilPapers
Nozick, Robert (1969). Coercion. In White Morgenbesser, Philosophy, Science, and Method: Essays in Honor of Ernest Nagel. St Martin's Press. pp. 440--72.
[11]
Duress & Undue Influence: How Coercion Invalidates Contracts
These concepts challenge the contractual validity by introducing elements of coercion that undermine informed decision-making. Key aspects include: Coercive ...
[12]
Coercion in Contract Law: A Legal Perspective - The Law Studies
Essential Elements of Coercion: (1) Committing or threatening to commit: (2) Act must be forbidden: (3) Unlawfully detaining or threatening to detain: (4) ...Overview · Essential Elements of Coercion · Classification of Coercion
[13]
An Analysis of Duress and Undue Influence in Contract Law
Sep 8, 2022 · constituent elements of coercion include: first, the intention of coercion; second, there must be coercive behavior; third, coercion is ...<|separator|>
[14]
When Is a Statement to Police Considered Involuntary?
A statement to police, ie, a confession, is considered involuntary when it is the product of unlawful coercion (threats, physical torture, mental duress, i..e.)Missing: involuntariness | Show results with:involuntariness
[15]
Understanding Coercion Defense - Philip Kim Law, PC
Mar 1, 2024 · Critical Elements of Coercion Defense. As long as you did not negligently place yourself in a dangerous situation, you can claim coercion as ...
[16]
Persuasion and Coercion: A Critical Review of Philosophical and ...
Persuasion and Coercion: A Critical Review of Philosophical and Empirical Approaches ... Quantitative and qualitative distinctions in models of persuasion.
[17]
The Difference Between Persuade, Convince, and Coerce
Persuasion requires understanding. Coercion requires only power. We usually equate coercion with obvious force, but sometimes it's far more subtle. If you want ...
[18]
Coercion, Manipulation, Exploitation - Oxford Academic
Exploitation, which partly overlaps with both coercion and manipulation, involves making use of the vulnerabilities of others for your ends. All three concepts ...
[19]
Persuasion or coercion? An empirical ethics analysis about the use ...
Oct 21, 2022 · No theoretical distinctions have been made between “persuasive” and “coercive” influence strategies [12], i.e. persuasion and coercion.
[20]
Coercion (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy/Fall 2016 Edition)
Feb 10, 2006 · The law, Aquinas suggests, must use “force and fear” in order to restrain those who are “found to be depraved, and prone to vice, and not easily ...
[21]
Coercion and Volition in Law and Philosophy | Cambridge Core
Feb 6, 2018 · This paper discusses cases in which defendants were coerced to do something they wanted to do anyway.<|separator|>
[22]
[PDF] DURESS, COERCION AND NECESSITY - Office of Justice Programs
Jan 31, 1980 · Duress is human compulsion, coercion is compulsion in marriage, and necessity is compulsion from natural forces or weighing competing harms.
[23]
[PDF] CUSTODIAL COMPULSION - Boston University
Coercion can involve either literal involuntariness or hard-choice involuntariness. Compulsion involves only hard-choice involuntariness. This Article also ...<|control11|><|separator|>
[24]
COERCION AND THE AUTHORITY OF REASON - jstor
to stipulate an end for argument. But surely, the point is not to find a way to silence Thrasymachus once he has interrupted and threatened coercion. It is ...
[25]
Justice, Power, and Virtue: Exploring Classical Perspectives, Plato's ...
Mar 18, 2025 · Contrasting with the previous Greek concept of justice, Plato regards coercion as only possible for keeping just order, not for penitentiary ...
[26]
COERCION AND OBJECTIVITY IN PLATO'S DIALECTIC - jstor
Polus and Gorgias were victims of this coercion, and Callicles protests at being assaulted in the same way. Callicles' charge seems easy to support ; we can ...
[27]
Abstract–Aristotle's Treatment of Force and Compulsion as ...
Nov 21, 2013 · Third, the case of actions done under overwhelming coercion that overpowers human nature induces particular problems because of Aristotle's ...
[28]
Analysis for Book III - CliffsNotes
Actions are voluntary when the individual is free from external coercion, but choice is something that is initiated by himself. Freedom is a condition which ...
[29]
Aristotle on Coercion - Philosophy Dictionary of Arguments
Coercion/Ancient philosophy). They are unimpressed by the democratic argument for two reasons. 1) First of all, they understand freedom differently. Following ...
[30]
Between Persuasion and Coercion in Plato's Republic - Academia.edu
(ii) The arguments that the best rulers will rule only under coercion (in Books I, V, VII, and IX) make the distinction into an obvious conundrum. Ultimately ...
[31]
Bezemek & Dumbrovsky on the Concept of ... - Legal Theory Blog
It carries legitimacy and justifies coercion; and it has done so ever since: 'Salus populi suprema lex esto' rings as maxim from Cicero's De Legibus to Locke's ...
[32]
Enforceable Duties: Cicero and Kant on the Legal Nature of Political ...
... theory, on the other.67 The Ciceronian way out points in the direction of a specifically legal political theory, one that provides a legal warrant for coercion ...<|separator|>
[33]
https://press.princeton.edu/books/hardcover/9780691637143/coercion
[34]
Coercion on JSTOR
Wertheimer attempts to move beyond previous theories of coercion by conducting a fairly extensive survey of the way in which cases involving coercion have ...
[35]
Chapter 2 - Eligibility Requirements - USCIS
Oct 20, 2021 · ... coercion. Examples of physical coercion include: An actual or threatened physical act that could result in harm;; The use or threatened ...B. Victim Of Severe Form Of... · 4. Labor Trafficking... · C. Physical Presence On...<|separator|>
[36]
Coercion in Law | Overview, Punishment & Examples - Study.com
Putting a gun to someone's head would be an example of physical coercion. This is not to be confused with extortion, which is when someone obtains something ...
[37]
[PDF] On Coercion and the (Functions of) Law - PhilArchive
In this sense, MacCormick distinguishes between direct physical coercion and coercion by threat5. The former are cases where force is used to make a subject ...
[38]
Physical coercion Definition | Law Insider
Physical coercion means the use of physical force, methods of combat wrestling and military working dogs.
[39]
Psychological Coercion in Human Trafficking - PubMed - NIH
Psychological Coercion in Human Trafficking: An Application of Biderman's Framework. Qual Health Res. 2015 Sep;25(9):1171-81. doi: 10.1177/1049732314557087 ...
[40]
Coercive Methods For Enforcing Compliance - Psychology Tools
This resource presents coercive techniques used by abusers to manipulate their victims into compliance. Drawing upon the framework developed by psychologist ...
[41]
[PDF] Biderman's Chart of Coercion
A tool designed to demonstrate and explain the coercive methods of stress manipulation used to torture prisoners of war. It has been applied to explain the ...
[42]
[PDF] Biderman's Chart of Coercion
It has since been applied to explain the coercive techniques used by perpetrators of domestic abuse. ➢ Isolation: Perpetrator deprives victim of all social ...Missing: psychological | Show results with:psychological
[43]
Psychological Coercion in Human Trafficking - Sage Journals
Our analysis demonstrates how these coercion tactics reinforced the submission of trafficked persons to their traffickers even in the absence of physical force ...
[44]
[PDF] Coercive-Control-Article-Update-Review-Evan-Stark-Marianne ...
Coercive control is not a type of violence. Indeed, level of control predicts a range of negative outcomes heretofore associated with physical abuse, including ...
[45]
[PDF] EVA Notes Coercive Control.spub
“Coercive control” is a term coined by sociologist and domestic violence expert Evan Stark, PhD, founder of one of the first American shelters for women fleeing ...
[46]
[PDF] External Threat as Coercion
The purpose of this paper is to theoretically model and experimentally investigate indirect coercion and compare its effectiveness in extracting valued ...
[47]
[PDF] The Sociology of Gaslighting
The IPV literature provides preliminary evidence that gaslighting is a common feature of controlling and coercive relationships, but it has not examined this ...<|separator|>
[48]
Gaslighting in Intimate Relationships: A Form of Coercive Control ...
Gaslighting is abusive behaviour used to coercively control and gain power over another individual. Like other forms of coercive control, gaslighting harms ...
[49]
The Psychology of Coercion Failure: How Reactance Explains ... - jstor
We test for reactance as a cause of coercion failure with two novel experiments. Each experiment pairs a coercive threat treatment with a matched “natural costs ...
[50]
The Psychology of Coercion Failure: How Reactance Explains ...
May 29, 2025 · We test for reactance as a cause of coercion failure with two novel experiments. Each experiment pairs a coercive threat treatment with a ...
[51]
Reactance - supermemo.guru
Sep 29, 2022 · ... coercion, resistance to direct instruction, resistance or ... Restricted freedom suppresses reactance, and leads to learned helplessness ...
[52]
The Trauma and Mental Health Impacts of Coercive Control - NIH
Coercive control includes economic abuse, stalking, reproductive coercion. IPV = intimate partner violence; PTSD = post-traumatic stress disorder. *. p ≤ .001 ...
[53]
[PDF] Economic Coercion - Oxford Handbooks - Elena V. McLean
May 12, 2021 · Economic coercion is a threatened or actual imposition of economic costs on one state by another with the objective of extracting a policy ...
[54]
Evidence on the Costs and Benefits of Economic Sanctions | PIIE
In 55 post-war episodes, the success rate for such cases was only slightly below that for all cases involving the United States, 29 percent versus 33 percent.Missing: data | Show results with:data
[55]
Oil Embargo, 1973–1974 - Office of the Historian
By 1973, OPEC had demanded that foreign oil corporations increase prices and cede greater shares of revenue to their local subsidiaries. In April, the Nixon ...Missing: coercion | Show results with:coercion
[56]
Examining China's Coercive Economic Tactics - CSIS
May 10, 2023 · China's economic coercion has become part and parcel of its foreign policy against many trading partners. Countries that interact with Taiwan, ...
[57]
Structural Coercion and the Power of Social and Economic Context
Dec 23, 2013 · This paper introduces the term “structural coercion” to underscore the ways in which broader social, economic, and political contexts act upon individuals to ...Missing: definition sociology
[58]
Structural Coercion and the Power of Social and Economic Context
Aug 10, 2025 · This paper introduces the term “structural coercion” to underscore the ways in which broader social, economic, and political contexts act upon individuals to ...
[59]
[PDF] Property Rights, Coercion, and the Welfare State
It reserves its objection, correctly I believe, for cases in which some individuals are poor or. PROPERTY RIGHTS, COERCION, AND THE WELFARE STATE. F. 521.
[60]
Coercion - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
the coercer — make something necessary for another agent. The “ ...History · Aquinas · Contemporary philosophical... · Uses for thought about coercion
[61]
STATE COERCION, MORAL ATTITUDES, AND TAX COMPLIANCE
The results yield strong support for moral attitudes (both moral imperatives and moral alignment) and state coercion, but little support for state reciprocity.
[62]
(PDF) Gaus on Coercion and Welfare-State Capitalism: A Critique
Aug 6, 2025 · Given the degree of coercion needed by these regimes, he contends that parties to a contract would not agree to them, whereas they would agree ...
[63]
The Duress Defense in Criminal Law Cases - Justia
Oct 15, 2025 · The Elements of Duress · A reasonable fear of imminent death or serious bodily harm · Through the words or actions of another person · With no ...
[64]
duress | Wex | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute
Duress is when unlawful threats or coercive behavior causes someone to act against their will, destroying their free will and judgment.
[65]
1816. Defenses -- Duress | United States Department of Justice
An indispensable element of such a defense is evidence of a bona fide effort to surrender or return to custody as soon as the claimed duress or necessity has ...
[66]
Coercion | Georgia Criminal Lawyer
Georgia does accept the defense of coercion in criminal cases, except for murder cases. Lawson and Berry and the team of Georgia Coercion Attorneys are ...
[67]
Duress - Criminal Law Notebook
At common law, duress is an available defence to any offences short of murder. It must be shown that the accused's will was overborne by threats of death or ...
[68]
5.4 Defenses Based on Choice – Criminal Law
Three elements are required for the duress defense. First, the defendant or another person must face a threat of imminent serious bodily injury or death (Conn. ...<|separator|>
[69]
2C:13-5. Criminal coercion - WomensLaw.org
Oct 23, 2024 · A person is guilty of criminal coercion if, with purpose unlawfully to restrict another's freedom of action to engage or refrain from engaging in conduct, he ...
[70]
[PDF] Politics as a Vocation, Max Weber [1919] (extract)
Today, however, we have to say that a state is a human community that (successfully) claims the monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force within a given ...
[71]
Violence as a Constitutive of States | International Political Sociology
Apr 22, 2025 · Max Weber claimed that the “monopoly of the use of legitimate violence” is the decisive criterion that distinguishes the modern state from all ...Abstract · State Monopoly of Legitimate... · Violence as a Constitutive... · Conclusion
[72]
[PDF] THE STATE'S MONOPOLY OF FORCE AND THE RIGHT TO BEAR ...
A), our legal system lacks any viable coercive means to compel governments to provide adequate law enforcement services. ... state's stand your ground law, not a ...
[73]
[PDF] 1 “The Constitution of Coercion - econ.umd.edu
We cannot understand the structure of human organizations by beginning with non-coerced voluntary cooperation and then adding in violence and coercion. The ...
[74]
STATE COERCION AND FORCE* | Social Philosophy and Policy
Dec 14, 2011 · ... monopoly of (legitimate) coercion or force. I have ... Indeed, what is puzzling about the state's coercive powers is not the justification ...<|separator|>
[75]
Violence and Nondelegation - Harvard Law Review
Jun 21, 2022 · According to Anglo-American legal tradition and early modern political theory, the state holds the monopoly on legitimate violence. In exchange ...
[76]
DEMOCRACY AND THE MONOPOLY ON FORCE - jstor
The Heller decision suggests that under the Constitution, the gov- ernment is not entitled to maintain a monopoly on the legitimate use of violence. At best, ...
[77]
The monopoly of legitimate force: denationalization, or business as ...
As Max Weber and many others in his tradition have argued, the monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force is the core of the modern state.
[78]
[PDF] Challenging the Weberian Concept of the State - Herbert Wulf
Weber defines the state as “that human community which successfully lays claim to the monopoly of legitimate physical violence within a certain territory ...
[79]
Military Conscription Is a Tool for Centralization, State Building, and ...
Nov 10, 2021 · American governments, state or national, drafted men not only to fight the Revolution and the War of 1812, but also to wage Indian wars and to ...
[80]
The Ethics of Conscription - The Prindle Institute for Ethics
Feb 21, 2024 · The legitimacy of conscription stems from the general political legitimacy of the state and its coercive powers. A potent concern is consent.
[81]
Coercion Theory: A Basic Introduction for Practitioners
deterrence and compellence — are distinct in their nature and requirements. When an actor refrains from a ...Methods Of Coercion · Airpower And Coercion · Escalation Dominance And The...
[82]
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=5429914
[83]
[PDF] Quick Facts on Tax Fraud Offenses
The average sentence for tax fraud offenders was 16 months. • 68.7% were sentenced to prison. • 1.2% were convicted of an offense carrying a mandatory minimum ...
[84]
Taxation, Forced Labor, and Theft: Reply | Edward C. Feser
Libertarian theorists Robert Nozick and Murray Rothbard, standing virtually alone in academia, argued that coercive taxation is immoral.
[85]
[PDF] Welfare Programs and Labor Supply
The labor supply and other work incentive effects of welfare programs have long been a central concern in economic research.
[86]
Chapter 34 Welfare programs and labor supply - ScienceDirect.com
The labor supply and other work incentive effects of welfare programs have long been a central concern in economic research.
[87]
Robert Nozick's Political Philosophy.
Rawls argued that in addition to protecting the basic liberties, it is legitimate for the state to use its coercive powers (via redistributive taxation) to ...
[88]
[PDF] What's Wrong with Strict Liability and Nonmonetary Penalties? The ...
that “25.9% of those who thought that jail would be imposed for evasion . . . had evaded tax. In contrast, only 15.3% of those who thought nothing would happen ...
[89]
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ajps.12711
[90]
[PDF] The Psychology of Coercion Failure: How Reactance Explains ...
Reactance theory ex- plains that when ... We test reactance as a cause of coercion failure first by designing experiments that compare coercive threats.
[91]
The Trauma and Mental Health Impacts of Coercive Control
Coercive control is linked to mental health issues like PTSD, complex PTSD, and depression. It aims to degrade, isolate, and deprive a person of their rights.
[92]
An exploration of perceived coercion into psychological assessment ...
Three overarching themes were identified: 'awareness of coercive power', 'experiencing and responding to perceived coercion' and 'psychology is helpful, but . .
[93]
Coercion in Psychiatric Care: Systematic Review of Correlates and ...
May 1, 2011 · This study systematically examined the empirical literature on the themes and correlates of coercion as defined by the subjective experience of patients in ...
[94]
Evidence synthesis on coercion in mental health: An umbrella review
Oct 31, 2023 · Coercion affects physical health, recovery and psychological and emotional well-being, resulting in negative emotions and causing profound ...
[95]
Long-term effects of involuntary hospitalization on medication ...
Apr 19, 2013 · Long-term effects of involuntary hospitalization on medication adherence, treatment engagement and perception of coercion. Soc Psychiatry ...
[96]
Neuro Milgram – Your brain takes less ownership of actions that you ...
Apr 25, 2016 · Your brain takes less ownership of actions that you perform under coercion. New findings help explain why many people can be coerced so easily.
[97]
Compliance without coercion: Effects of reporting on international ...
Jun 8, 2020 · A dominant argument in research on compliance holds that material coercion is necessary for states to abide by their international ...
[98]
How Would People Behave in Milgram's Experiment Today?
Jul 24, 2018 · In the “remote condition” version of the experiment described above, 65 percent of the subjects (26 out of 40) continued to inflict shocks right ...
[99]
The power of social influence: A replication and extension of ... - NIH
Nov 29, 2023 · In this paper, we pursue four goals: First, we replicate the original Asch experiment with five confederates and one naïve subject in each group.2. Literature Review · 4. Results · Fig 1. Asch Line Task...Missing: defiance | Show results with:defiance
[100]
Asch Conformity Line Experiment - Simply Psychology
May 15, 2025 · Solomon Asch experimented with investigating the extent to which social pressure from a majority group could affect a person to conform.Missing: defiance | Show results with:defiance
[101]
The Psychology of Moral Conviction - PubMed
Jan 4, 2021 · Moral convictions are attitudes seen as grounded in right and wrong, perceived as universally true, and immune to authority or peer influence.
[102]
Opposing torture: Moral conviction and resistance to majority influence
The present study tested the role of people's moral convictions against the use of torture in resisting conforming to a majority of peers.
[103]
(PDF) Authorities' Coercive and Legitimate Power: The Impact on ...
Aug 7, 2025 · Findings reveal that coercive power increases an antagonistic climate and enforced compliance, whereas legitimate power increases reason-based trust.
[104]
[PDF] Dutton-Goodman-coercive-control-model.pdf - NIWAP Library
Apr 15, 2005 · Resistance to coercion is facilitated by tangible (e.g., economic resources, access to transportation, place to stay), social (e.g., emotional ...<|separator|>
[105]
Coercive and legitimate authority impact tax honesty - PubMed Central
Apr 11, 2017 · Experiment 1 showed that in a condition of coercive authority, tax payments are lower, decisions are faster and participants report more ...
[106]
Libertarianism - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
Aug 7, 2023 · Libertarians take individual freedom as the paramount political value and understand coercion to be the antithesis of that freedom. While people ...Property Rights and Original... · Libertarianism, Left and Right · Bibliography
[107]
THE LIBERTARIAN NONAGGRESSION PRINCIPLE
Apr 29, 2016 · Such a principle, I argue, takes us not quite as far as strict libertarians like Rothbard, Rand, and Nozick would like to go. ... Coercion in ...The Libertarian... · Ii. Aggression And Property... · Iv. Absolutism
[108]
The Non-Aggression Principle Is Realistic and Not an Abstract ...
Apr 22, 2025 · Under the NAP, violence against another is only justified in self-defense, and we must therefore have recourse to the principles of self-defense ...<|separator|>
[109]
The Encyclopedia of Libertarianism - Anarchism - Sage Knowledge
Max Weber famously defined government as an organization with a geographic monopoly on legitimate coercion. Libertarianism puts severe limits on morally ...<|separator|>
[110]
[PDF] Ethics of Liberty by Murray N. Rothbard - Mises Institute
Nov 8, 2019 · coercion can never be licit from the libertarian point of view. For not only does increased taxation mean increased coercion and aggression.
[111]
Is Taxation Theft? | Libertarianism.org
Mar 16, 2017 · Taxation is not theft, because citizens have agreed to pay taxes. This is part of the “social contract,” which is a kind of agreement between citizens and the ...
[112]
Libertarian Theory of Law and Justice: A Comprehensive Analysis
Jun 29, 2025 · Nozick's framework emphasizes respecting individual rights without state coercion, viewing redistributive policies as violations of liberty.
[113]
[PDF] Taxation, Forced Labor, and Theft - Independent Institute
It is important to understand how this argument differs from other libertarian arguments against taxation. It is not quite the same as the general claim that ...
[114]
Yes, Taxation Is Theft | Mises Institute
Libertarians think that taxation is theft. The government takes away part of your income and property by force. Your payments aren't voluntary.
[115]
[PDF] Murray Rothbard's Conception of the Proper Role of Coercion in ...
Under the prevailing theory, government holds a forceful monopoly on the use of violence, and therefore on coercion, which is heavily based on the political ...
[116]
[PDF] ARGUMENTS FOR LIBERTY - Cato Institute
liberal principle of legitimacy, which says that state coercion can be justified only by reasons that draw on shared political values. In other words ...
[117]
Death rates from violence in non-state societies - Our World in Data
Deaths from violence per 100000 people in a given population, per year. Non-state societies are those that consist of a chiefdom, tribe, or clan.
[118]
[PDF] THE MONOPOLY OF VIOLENCE: EVIDENCE FROM COLOMBIA
States vary greatly in their capacities and the extent to which they monopolize violence and these differences are often viewed as key enablers of economic and ...
[119]
Homicide and State History - John Gerring, Carl Henrik Knutsen, 2022
Nov 9, 2022 · At the low end, many societies experience homicide rates of less than one per 100,000. At the high end, homicide rates exceed 10 per 100,000 ...
[120]
[PDF] "Social Contract" In - Cecile Fabre
Social contract theorists typically address the following issues: the reasons why individu- als do, indeed ought to, consent to the state's exercise of coercive ...
[121]
The Role of Coercion in Social Theory (Chapter 4)
Aug 30, 2017 · ... power granted to a leader and coercive power appropriated by a ruler. ... contract, coercion, marginalization, or exploitation made ...
[122]
Calculating Consequences:The Utilitarian Approach to Ethics
... coercion. Many of us use this type of moral reasoning frequently in our daily decisions. When asked to explain why we feel we have a moral duty to perform ...
[123]
On Liberty by John Stuart Mill : chapter two - Utilitarianism
Let us suppose, therefore, that the government is entirely at one with the people, and never thinks of exerting any power of coercion unless in agreement with ...
[124]
On the Surprising Implications of Coercion Theory - Sage Journals
Jan 22, 2021 · This article argues that, when properly unpacked in its theoretical commitments, coercion theory has surprising implications both within and beyond borders.
[125]
Voluntary versus enforced tax compliance: Empirical evidence for ...
Aug 7, 2025 · The “slippery slope” framework is an alternative approach for research in tax compliance that suggests two key variables to obtain taxpayers' compliance: trust ...
[126]
[PDF] The Impact of the IRS on Voluntary Tax Compliance: Preliminary ...
Two recent research studies at the IRS, however, have produced estimates of at least some of these effects, providing an empirical basis for choosing the best ...
[127]
[PDF] Research-Studies-Factors-Influencing-Voluntary-Compliance-by ...
This document presents preliminary survey results on factors influencing voluntary compliance by small businesses. The study used DIF scores as a proxy for ...
[128]
Psychological reactance to vaccine mandates on Twitter
Jan 19, 2025 · Finally, research suggests that psychological reactance can be provoked when individuals perceive coercion of others, even if they ...
[129]
'War on drugs has failed, completely and utterly': UN human rights ...
Dec 5, 2024 · “We are destined to fail unless we ensure their genuine participation in formulating and implementing drug policy”. “The evidence is clear. The ...
[130]
Four Decades and Counting: The Continued Failure of the War on ...
Apr 12, 2017 · What these arguments fail to appreciate, however, is that making markets illegal fails to reduce, much less eliminate, the market for drugs.
[131]
Effect of coercive measures on mental health status in adult ... - NIH
Sep 12, 2024 · Our study presents robust empirical evidence highlighting the detrimental impact of coercive measures on the mental health of psychiatric inpatients.
[132]
Coercive Measures in Psychiatry Can Hardly Be Justified in ...
Oct 25, 2024 · There is insufficient evidence for the effectiveness of coercive measures in psychiatric care (see recently Hofstad et al. ... “Coercive Measures ...
[133]
The Effectiveness of Nudging and Its Ethical Implications
Jun 15, 2025 · Nudging consists of interventions that aim to alter behavior in a certain way by changing the presentation or framing of options, without coercion or changing ...
[134]
[PDF] Coercive Diplomacy Recalibrated: Evaluating Effectiveness, Risks ...
The enduring appeal of coercive diplomacy as a tool to achieve foreign policy goals without initiating full-scale war stands in stark contrast to the findings ...