Regarding what besides the government can be coercive: 
     If the political and legal structure require that a woman with 
small children (a) work two jobs to afford decent day care, housing, 
and food; (b) work one job and leave the kids with whatever arrangement 
can be worked out, even if it is obviouslyu suboptimal; (c) not work  
at all and beg for food and shelter -- can this be called coercive? 
     Or, what if the government is all that stands between me and 
a former lover bent on beating the living daylights out of me?  IF 
government will not protect me, I have to choose between staying with 
this man and doing his bidding, or taking the risk that he will follow 
through on his threat and kill me?  (This is a real choice some women 
face).  So can government also RELIEVE the coercion in a situation and 
permit choices that were previously unavailable?   
     I ask the first question quite seriously, though, because this 
seems to be a trend within economic history, and I'm deeply concerned 
about it.  As a historian -- though well-trained in economics, my 
Ph.D. is in history -- I am caught in the middle when an economist 
stands up in a history seminar and says, "Economic theory teaches us 
that all government is coercion, and the free market always provides 
a better solution."  Their word against mine, and they have the 
econ Ph.D.!  I'm trying to figure out if this is only going on within 
economic history, or if it is going on in the larger arena of  
economics.  It's exacerbated also in economic history because the 
"audience" is not at all familiar with the language and conventions of 
economics when the audience is historians; but even when the audience 
is other economists, if it is a period of time or subspecialty far 
removed from others' interests, they won't know the conventions either. 
But economists tell me they are not required to footnote anytying. 
So an economist can claim "economic theory" with impunity!   
     Trying to formulate a reasonable scholarly response, I am serious 
when I ask where this trend is coming from.  If it is coming from 
conservative political theory, then it's not "economic theory".  Can't 
I ask for footnotes?  Shouldn't my journal (JEH)?   
     Is it just in econ history, or is this going on "out there", too? 
     -- Mary Schweitzer