In the thread about the French banning burkinis, the issue of coercion came up, and there appeared to be a difference in what posters considered to be being “forced” to do something - some envisioning physical violence while others felt that societal or familial non-violent pressure sufficed as well.
Obviously, coercion runs along a spectrum - at the one end, brutal physical violence, and at the other end, perhaps just mere verbal disapproval - but at what point would you consider someone to be “forced” into a particular course of action?
Potential for financial loss? Societal and familial pressure? Anything that entails punitive consequences? Other negative consequences?
I think there’s a distinction between “not allowed to do something you want” and “you must do this thing you find repugnant”. Telling people they can’t wear burkinis is a violation that wouldn’t be allowed here, but it’s less an issue of force than if they were told they had to wear a miniskirt or else.
But in the end, all laws are backed by deadly force. BLM understands that well. Any minor infraction can turn into a deadly incident if you resist the authorities(or appear to be resisting in their eyes).
Generally speaking, a short time after the judge signs the court order the police will show up and force you to do whatever the order says you are to do. Sometimes the police don’t need the order, for example a policeman says to drop the gun, and you don’t, they will fill your body full of bullets thus “forcing” you to drop the gun.
Right, because if my boss tells me I have to work Saturday, the cops will be by shortly to pump me full of bullets.
So if you go all the way to the extreme – threaten eternal torment for those who don’t, does the Christian god “force” his adherents to accept Christ as their savior?
I’d say it’s when the negative consequences are both severe enough, and realistic enough, to overcome the desire to act in the proscribed manor.
Of course, both “severe enough” and “realistic enough” are highly dependent on individual situations. For example, kids can be “forced” to do many things by their parents that adults would be able to resist, largely because kids are, both legally and practically, entirely dependent on their parents. A threat to not pay for something, or to disallow a particular activity, is both far more severe, and realistic to a kid. An adult would have the option of moving out and getting a job.
This also applies to adults in different situations. A recent immigrant, with no education, or an education that is not recognized in the new country, with possible language difficulties, is much easier to “force” into certain behaviors than a native citizen would be. This is where the familial and social pressures come into play - the people in question may not be able to see any way they could survive absent the support of their family and friends, and so capitulate to their demands, when someone not in that state would more likely tell their family to get bent.
Legislation is force. Threat of serious physical violence is force. Threat of losing your job is force.
Spousal, peer, societal pressure is not force.
The attempt to make someone do something without their independent assessment that doing so is indeed what they want to do is coercive. That definitely includes the deliberate use of reward and/or punishment. Obviously that’s a sufficiently broad-spectrum definition that eliminating it is not possible. It’s part of life.
The rest is not a matter of crossing some kind of line in a black-and-white world and now you’re in coercion-land, but is instead complicated shades of grey. Ethically, humans should coerce as little and as seldom as possible; and our systems of social org should be set up accordingly.
That must be specific to your jurisdiction. Around here if an employer uses physical force on an employee, the employer will be arrested and charged with the crime of assault.
Depends on the job market … I’ve walked off plenty of jobs with every expectation of having another within a half day. Hell, I’ve walked off a job simply because I didn’t think I was being paid enough for what they asked me to do, walked a half a block to a guy who promised to never ask me to do such. No way would I finish concrete for carpenter’s pay.
What in the world does your comment have to do with WatchWolf’s comment? That makes no sense whatsoever.
If your boss is your platoon leader I suppose that could happen since you’d be AWOL. But otherwise, no.
So…by this definition, I’m pretty sure no one would pay income tax without the ‘coercion’ of laws requiring it.
Ditto alimony, departure tax, speeding tickets.
All coerced. Yet society seems to function pretty well regardless.
Being ‘forced’ is about being presented with consequences such that you prefer to do the thing being demanded of you rather than the alternative.
So, what counts as force is going to depend a lot on context and on the people involved. There is no “this action counts as forced, but this one doesn’t” as the OP suggests.
What might make my brain scream “Do X so that they don’t do Y!!!” might make you just shrug your shoulders and say, “I don’t care at all if you do Y, go right ahead, I’m not doing X.”
And, just because you might be a person who doesn’t feel forced to do something because of the threat of Y doesn’t negate the fact that someone else might be forced by that same stimulus.
That depends. Tax laws are a good example of laws that breed disrespect for the law because cheating is so widespread:
If the government cracked down on this, there’d be a rebellion. So instead they try to tamp down resistance by making examples of people who pubilcly refuse to pay taxes. And you know what they do? they send men with guns to their house:
There was a series of rapes when the rapists would break into a house, tie up the man and put a gun to head, and threaten to shot him if the woman didn’t have sex with them.
In court, the rapists claim it was rape because they never threatened the woman with anything.
Judge did not buy it.
“Yes, your honor, it was rape, because I didn’t threaten her.”
“What kind of fool do you take me for? I don’t believe you for one second. Case dismissed!”
What a fiendishly clever defense. 
All choices are “forced” to a degree. I would rather have $150 in my wallet, but my family needs groceries. Is the purchase of groceries coerced?
It happens in plea hearings all of the time. The judge asks the defendant if he is entering his guilty plea “freely and voluntarily” and “without any threats or coercion.” He answers “yes.” Well, if he didn’t accept the plea deal, he would be sentenced to a much longer term in prison. I consider it laughable to say in any meaningful way that he entered the plea freely. He would much rather just walk out of jail. As such, the meaning of “free choice” implies the disclaimer “given all other impediments to your choice that are legally placed upon you.”
Society only prohibits those types of “forced” choices we consider unacceptable, and that is implied in the definition of coercion. Nobody owes me free groceries or a get out of jail free card. Therefore, so long as the alternative does not violate the law or public policy, the choice is considered a free one.
Is there a Godwin’s Law or Rule 34 for this?
Saying you were “forced” to do something only works if there is a punishment or consequence for inaction. But usually I hear people saying it the other way around… They want to do something and are just trying to justify it after the fact.
Like if someone were to say, “The government banned heroin, so I’m forced to buy it from a drug dealer.” No, you chose to buy it from a drug dealer despite the prohibition. Nobody forced you to do anything. Sitting at home on your couch was a perfectly valid option.
Only the use or threat of physical violence is coercive. Claiming anything else is an attempt to adopt the language of libertarianism and come to a statist conclusion which always results in real-deal coercion.
If a guy can’t get a date because he refuses to bathe, is he being coerced by society into lathering up?