"Coercion" and Libertarianism
"Both libertarians and statists occasionally tendentiously abuse the straightforward English usage."
coercion The plain, narrow, and useful English meaning of “coercion” is the actual or threatened (even if only a bluff) use of physical force against a *person that constrains his *actions (without successful constraint it was only attempted coercion). Thus, such coercion can be used either *legitimately or illegitimately: e.g., to restrain a, would-be, criminal or to impose some *crime on a person. *Boxing involves coercion with full *consent and no crime involved.
Both *libertarians and *statists occasionally tendentiously abuse the straightforward English usage. Libertarians sometimes describe all and only unlibertarian activities as “(initiated) coercion”. But it should be clear that there need be no use, or threat, of force against a person when there is *theft or *fraud. And “legitimate (initiated) coercion” is not an oxymoron. Statists sometimes describe any threat, or even offer, that they feel to be unacceptable or *immoral as “coercion”. But it is even clearer that merely to threaten to withhold a benefit does not involve any, threat of, physical force.
If libertarians want a general word or expression for all that must be unlibertarian, then “unlibertarian” itself cannot be wrong. However, *“initiated imposition” is also a useful contender. (But *“aggression” has problems).
(This is an entry from A LIBERTARIAN DICTIONARY: Explaining a Philosophical Theory [draft currently being revised]. Asterisks indicate other entries.)