The only kind of coercion I recommend is mutual coercion, mutually agreed upon by the majority of the people affected.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
If we wish to preserve a free society, it is essential that we recognize that the desirability of a particular object is not sufficient justification for the use of coercion.
Law is any application for the official use of coercion that succeeds.
To say that we mutually agree to coercion is not to say that we are required to enjoy it, or even to pretend we enjoy it.
The majority is not society, is not everyone. Majority coercion over the minority is still coercion.
If you want to bring an end to long-standing conflict, you have to be prepared to compromise.
Coercion, after all, merely captures man. Freedom captivates him.
Democracy, like any non-coercive relationship, rests on a shared understanding of limits.
All governments must maintain power through consent, not coercion.
I don't think there's anything in the compromise that means that there's a clash of ethics.
Coercion may prevent many transgressions; but it robs even actions which are legal of a part of their beauty. Freedom may lead to many transgressions, but it lends even to vices a less ignoble form.