This is a logical contradiction. Either Coercion is bad, period or sometimes it’s not. You can’t have exceptions to an absolute statement. If it’s unavoidable and the only solution to a problem, labeling it as “bad” is just childish word play. Coercion in those situations is good in that it is quite obviously beneficial.
Not relevant.
Considering institutions are made up of people and function through their interactions, specifically to deal with various human interactions across the spectrum, it’s a difference that makes no difference outside of semantics.
I support democracy. This has nothing to do with your statement on coercion, or how a society having a capacity for legal enforcement is “bad. period.”
Yes, you do. See, to agree with a syllogism, you need to agree with every logical premise presented therein. I reject your definitions, I reject your axioms, and I reject almost every conclusion you draw and therefore reject your entire argument. The only reason someone would accept “all coercion is bad, period” is if they’re an anarchist (who probably also believes in UFOs and unicorns).
This is the entire topic of discussion between us, so if you wont actually defend your point, then you have no argument at all.
This is simplistic and wrong. You apparently have no concept of justice, because you have omitted it entirely. People didn’t object to the king’s voice because simply because of coercion, they found the king’s unilateral authority to be unjust and believed that a codification of their rights including an ability to coerce the king where justice demanded it was necessary to facilitate and ensure justice. This, too, is a gross over simplification, but it’s far more accurate than mistyfing the issues under the blanket term “oppression.”
Justice requires coercion, because without it you can’t actually balance the scales against a bad actor.
This is so hilariously perverse I can scarcely believe you think this way. The American Revolution was not *about *coercion or caused by coercion - the articles of confederation and constitution retained the power to facilitate both. The declaration of independence doesn’t even mention the word or any synonym thereof.
Egalitarianism (in other words, treating people equally) has nothing to do with coercion. That the law coerces both parties without regards to circumstances of birth does not make them in any way less coercive. It makes them more just, because it is less unilateral and less unfair, but not one iota less coercive.
There are very few “coercive” things that are outlawed now that weren’t outlawed in English common law. If you break a contract, you are just as coerced now to follow said contract as you were 200 years ago. If you murder someone, the police will investigate, put you in front of a jury, and imprison you if found guilty.
Certain specific acts are now illegal - we’ve generally outlawed hanging - but there’s still capital punishment, the institution behind capital punishment, laws, and legal enforcement. It’s not that society is one iota less able to force you into not killing people, it’s that the consequences we as a society choose to impose on you are different. The coercion against murder, breach of contract, etc, is exactly the same. In fact, more robust because our ability to record information, gather evidence, and prosecute injustice have become more expansive.
A medieval peasant couldn’t easily sue a lord in the way that dozens if not hundreds have sued our darling president.
Too much to type, really.
I’m really starting to believe you have some warped, shifty definition of coercion. You seem to be using the word in contexts where it makes no sense or conflates with completely unrelated subjects. What definition are you even trying to use?