>Coercion is when someone reduces your option set, by threatening violence (against the person or property of you or someone you love). An offer, that you are free to reject, and have the faculty to fully comprehend, cannot meet the definition of coercive.
In an economy that defines itself by a high degree of the division of labor, where people no longer gather their own food and are dependent on the cooperation of other people, being excluded from the division of labor is the same as ending their ability to participate in society. They must now scramble and get their own plot of land and work the fields themselves and become self sufficient. There are offers that people cannot refuse realistically.
I would count this as coercion because people who own money can refuse to spend it indefinitely. As money is needed to conduct transactions, it becomes harder and harder to trade the more people keep money for the sake of having money instead of using money exclusively as a medium of exchange as many economists (even Marx) postulate, even though it has been proven wrong hundreds of times.
A store of value cannot be used as a medium of exchange, those are two mutually incompatible and this conflict makes the money -> goods transaction inherently coercive, which ironically also backfires, because the only way you can beat coercion is through psychological manipulation. How do you convince someone to get something they don't need? By creating an artificial need.
>>In an economy that defines itself by a high degree of the division of labor, where people no longer gather their own food and are dependent on the cooperation of other people, being excluded from the division of labor is the same as ending their ability to participate in society.
No one has the power to exclude you from the market and the benefits of division of labor.. You would only be excluded if what you provide is of such little apparent value, that no one wants to trade what they have for what you provide. That is not coercion. People have a right to not associate with you, even if that choice means you starve to death. You do not own other people.
>>I would count this as coercion because people who own money can refuse to spend it indefinitely.
People can barter. People can create their own money. When the state, under anti-libertarian principles, intervenes, and prohibits voluntary exchanges involving certain kinds of money then yes, these problems can theoretically emerge. This is why libertarian philosophy is so adament about not using the state's apparatus of violence (the courts, police and prisons which compel compliance with state orders) to restrict people from engaging in voluntary interactions with other consenting adults.
In an economy that defines itself by a high degree of the division of labor, where people no longer gather their own food and are dependent on the cooperation of other people, being excluded from the division of labor is the same as ending their ability to participate in society. They must now scramble and get their own plot of land and work the fields themselves and become self sufficient. There are offers that people cannot refuse realistically.
I would count this as coercion because people who own money can refuse to spend it indefinitely. As money is needed to conduct transactions, it becomes harder and harder to trade the more people keep money for the sake of having money instead of using money exclusively as a medium of exchange as many economists (even Marx) postulate, even though it has been proven wrong hundreds of times.
A store of value cannot be used as a medium of exchange, those are two mutually incompatible and this conflict makes the money -> goods transaction inherently coercive, which ironically also backfires, because the only way you can beat coercion is through psychological manipulation. How do you convince someone to get something they don't need? By creating an artificial need.