What is Coercion?
Coercion is not only a moral wrong; it is a theological usurpation and a political disease. We contend that coercion should be ended not merely because it is unpleasant or unjust, but because it violates the rightful supremacy of God, corrodes moral relationships among individuals, and undergirds oppressive institutions. We envision a society ordered by voluntary interactions under God’s ultimate authority.
Introduction
What is coercion, and why should it be ended? Coercion is when a person or entity uses physical force (or the threat of physical force) to compel an innocent person to do something they wouldn’t voluntarily do, or to prevent them from doing something they would. This force could be passive (like locking someone in a cage) or active (like shooting someone with a gun). The thing the innocent person is being coerced to do could be good in and of itself (like worshiping Jesus as Lord) or evil (like murdering a baby). There may be edge cases (such as with minors, like strapping an infant into a carseat while driving; or tackling a person to the ground to save them from an oncoming truck) where this definition could be nuanced.
Our world is ruled by a sovereign – YHWH, the king of the cosmos, the ruler of all creation, including humanity. At its core, coercion is wrong because it exalts the coercer above God, the only one who can rightly exercise authoritative force over a human. God is the one who gives women children (Gen. 29:31) and prevents them from having children (1 Sam. 1:5); God gives life (Psalm 139:16) and takes it away (Psalm 90:3); God determines when and where people live (Acts 17:26); God devastates cities (Amos 3:6); God destroys people’s possessions (Hag. 2:16-17); God wipes out mankind from the face of the earth (Gen. 6:7). For a man to do any of these things is immoral and wrong. Coercion attempts to take for oneself the power that God has reserved exclusively for himself, and is an affront to his unsubordinated superiority. Though God himself places on us many obligations in relation to others (submission to governing authorities; love for enemies), none of those obligations are appropriately fulfilled if the party in the position of power exacts the desired response by means of coercion. The fulfillment must be voluntary.
Coercion is not only a moral wrong; it is a theological usurpation and a political disease. We contend that coercion should be ended not merely because it is unpleasant or unjust, but because it violates the rightful supremacy of God, corrodes moral relationships among individuals, and undergirds oppressive institutions. We envision a society ordered by voluntary interactions under God’s ultimate authority.
The Good Life is Voluntary
Unless you are currently enslaved or incarcerated, most of your life is characterized by actions and speech that are voluntary – you choosing by an act of your will to do or not do something. You choose what to read, where to live, where to work, when to go to bed, what media to consume, where to buy food, where to relax or play, and with whom to relate. When someone has something to sell, if you and he can agree on a price, you happily make the trade – you give him your money, and he gives you the item. If there’s a person with whom you want to walk, you share the idea with them and if you agree, you walk together. This principle also applies to things we choose not to do: if someone offers you a job and the terms don’t sound favorable (rate of pay, hours of work, benefits, coworkers, job tasks, or anything else), you can freely refuse and never work there a day in your life. If a streaming media company displays content you find offensive, you can turn off the device and unsubscribe. If some new food product is advertised and it contains ingredients you find distasteful or harmful, you can choose to not eat it. These voluntary interactions are the foundational relational elements of a free society.
The Coerced Life is Oppressive
Some aspects of our relationships with others, however, are not characterized by voluntary or free interactions, but are instead characterized by coercion – forcing a person by violence (or threat of violence) to do or not do an act. If you don’t want your money being used by the government to bomb their enemies, your money might be taken away from you against your will and nevertheless used for that purpose. If you don’t want to be united sexually to another person, you might still be forced into it against your will. This principle of coercion also applies to actions we want to take, but from which we are legally barred: You might have been voluntarily hired by an employer to work to provide food, clothing, and shelter for your family, but the government will lock you in a cage if you get caught doing so. You might have 30 years of deep medical experience, but will have your money forcibly taken from you if you don’t get permission from the government to practice it. This coercion is incongruent with liberty, and is characteristic of a society in moral decay.
Free vs Coerced Actions
In English, we often have special words to describe an otherwise voluntary act that becomes evil when coerced. When two people unite physically, we call it “sex” when voluntary and “rape” when coerced. When you give your money to a cause that benefits others, it is called “charity” when voluntary and “taxes” when coerced. When your possessions are transferred to another person, it is called “giving” when voluntary and “robbery” when coerced. When you give your human labor to another person in exchange for food and clothing, it is called “work” when voluntary and “slavery” when coerced. When you don’t publish something for others to see or hear, it is called “silence” when voluntary and “censorship” when coerced. When you are audited to have something verified about you, it is called “accreditation” when voluntary and “regulation” when coerced. These word pairs reveal that there are real differences between voluntary and coercive acts, and these differences are significant: when an act is coerced, it strips the moral value from things that otherwise might be good. Is there any value in a “Praise Jesus!” elicited at the edge of a sword? Is there any value in voting, if you will go to jail if you vote for the “wrong” candidate? Is there any value in a confession, if gained through torture? Whenever a society’s “good deeds” are gained through coercion, it promotes hypocrisy and selfishness, and often results in an increase of evil deeds achieved through coercion, as well.
When Coercion is Justified
In many nations around the world, coercion is considered justified (or excused as noncoercive simply by definition) when the state exercises power over people (whether its own citizens, or sojourners, or foreigners living abroad), as long as that power is “legitimate” (having to do with what is legal). The obvious moral loophole is to enshrine patently immoral acts with the sanctity of law, and thereby assert all kinds of heinous acts as justified. The American state has done this most brazenly with taxation (taking the possessions of innocent people without their consent) and human slavery (abolished in the Constitution’s 13th Amendment for private citizens but remaining expressly legal for the government).
Our culture has done this most brazenly with mother-initiated infanticide, which was inaugurated with the Roe v Wade Supreme Court Decision in 1973: though overturned at the Federal level in 2022, it is still protected by law in all 50 states. Even if one were to argue that coercive state power directed at evildoers for good ends is a justifiable application of coercion, in this most egregious example of child murder, the power of the state is leveraged on the side of immorality: those locked in cages are the ones looking to protect the innocent life in the womb, and those protected by the police power of the state are the assassins and their accomplices carrying out their evil deeds.
We assert, to the contrary, that it is never justified to exercise coercive power. This is not merely a political preference or a philosophical ideal; it is a theological conviction. Coercion assumes for oneself a distorted grasp at the authority that belongs exclusively to God, who is the only rightful judge and ruler of humanity. When human beings compel others through violence or threat, they violate the moral order God has established. Imagine, instead, a society in which all people are free to act or not act, to do or not do, anything that does not itself involve coercion. This environment of noncoercive relationships is known as “liberty” or “freedom”, and is the natural birthright of all humanity. While the absence of coercion is not the only measure of righteousness, its presence is a corrosive force that undermines the moral integrity of individuals, the legitimacy of political institutions, and the authority of God Himself.
An End to Coercion
At End Coercion, we believe that the current state of affairs is not permanent – that we can and should make whatever changes are necessary to regain our God-given birthright of freedom and voluntary social interactions. Jefferson said it well: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. –That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.” This alteration or abolition of government needs to be nonviolent, nonconformist, and kingdom-minded in order to be congruent with the sovereignty of God and his Christ, but it must be done. Coercion in any form – whether personal, religious, or political – has no rightful place in a society ordered under God. The time has come to reject it, decisively and faithfully. Let’s end coercion, now.