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