The problem with your definition, Steven <Medema>, is that it is 
slightly different from the dictionary definition.  The dictionary 
definition is very narrow:  coerce means "to restrain or dominate 
by nullifying individual will; to compel to an act or choice; to enforce 
by force or threat."  If you define all government activities as 
coercion, you are going to get yourself into a lot of circular  
reasoning, or self-reinforcing reasoning -- for example, what does it 
mean to use force to prevent someone from using force to rob me?   
     This also leaves little room for the concept of a public good, 
and really the idea of a democracy.   
     For example:  I am happy to support public education, IF my 
neighbor also supports public education; conversely, my neighbor is 
happy to support public education if I do.  The only way I can be 
sure that my neighbor will pay his share -- and vice versa -- is 
if the government requires it -- but mind you, it requires it because 
we both voted for it. 
     And, yes, there are some cases where you are in the minority, 
and you lose the vote.  THEORETICALLY at least, you agree to that 
by agreeing to be part of the body politic of the United States (sorry 
those of you across the sea; translate it into something that fits 
your situation ...), and presumably you also get your way on some 
issues that I don't.  We agree to this, we compromise, if the 
democracy/republic is working as it is supposed to.   
     It is important to make distinctions between actions by the  
government that are "coercive" because we have voted for them to be 
so, actions that are "coercive" because if the government is not 
coercive, some individual is going to be (armed robbery), and 
actions that are "coercive" because the government is overstepping 
its bounds -- that is, exercising power in a way that goes against 
the common will.   
     When you are dealing with economic matters, all three distinctions 
(and probably more) hold.  If you use "coercion" indiscriminately, 
it makes it very difficult to communicate these distinctions -- 
which I think are very important distinctions to make. 
     And if you set up a discourse whereby free trade = freedom; 
market = best possible solution; and government = coercion; it may 
make policymaking easier, but it won't make for very accurate 
analysis (IMHO). 
     Would you use the term "coercion" in all three cases that I 
mentioned? 
     -- Mary Schweitzer