They tended to think of coercion as a broad phenomenon covering many aspects, and they referred to both formal and informal coercion.
The experience of practitioners working with victims of coercion is that it is perfectly possible for one human being to take control of another's mind by breaking down their capacity to think critically i.e. for themselves.
"You have to think of the voter as a potential adversary who might want to sell his vote or be susceptible to coercion," said Dr. Ronald L. Rivest, a professor of computer science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
This section gives a brief discussion of the questions in these areas, and what these areas add to thought about coercion.
When a coercer has the power to enforce his decision regardless of what the coercee chooses to do, this may provide the coercee a justification for failing to engage in an exercise in futility.[19] In the next section, we'll consider how coercion is thought to impinge upon freedom, something that raises obvious ethical implications in its own right.
The state's use of coercion is thought to be licensed in particular for the sake of preventing private acts of violence or coercion, as well as for punishing the failure to keep agreements.
Coercion has been thought to be inimical to at least some of these types of freedom, perhaps all, and also to have deleterious impacts on the special type we call autonomy.
"Because the holding is so dependent on the somewhat unusual facts of Medicaid, and because the court set forth no theory of coercion, I think we will see a lot of challenges in an effort to discover the contours of the coercion doctrine".
Coercion is typically thought to carry with it several important implications, including that it diminishes the targeted agent's freedom and responsibility, and that it is a (pro tanto) wrong and/or violation of right.
Then, in Big Momma's House 2, he dons the same disguise – albeit with much less coercion – to act as a nanny in the house of a man thought to be a dangerous hacker.
