You Can't Force Economists to Think Seriously About Coercion

Economist Daniel Klein over at Cato Unbound argues that it's OK–in fact, often essential–for economists to deal with the concept of coercion in their science. "The distinction between voluntary and coercive is built into many of the key analytic distinctions we use in economics," he insists. The essay is long and detailed and worth reading in full, but for those who like to leap to the conclusion:

Economic understanding, by experts and the general public alike, would gain by economists doing more of the following: (1) using the voluntary/coercive distinction in their formulations, analysis, and discourse; (2) making that utilization explicit and unabashed; (3) thinking hard about the content of that distinction, particularly by clarifying the holes and gray areas; (4) making it clear that, while they may promote a presumption of liberty, they do not mean to suggest that the distinction carries a necessary condemnation of coercion.