Doesn't an employer coerce a man when he successfully offers him atrocious pay for a job without which he and his family would starve?
There are several similarities and symmetries between threats and offers, but there is also this crucial difference: . . . a rational individual would prefer not to be the recipient of a threat (whether or not he thinks he would comply) whereas he would generally be willing to have offers made to him and would not regret their having been made, and it is for this reason that it is inappropriate to call offers coercive. This is so even if compliance with the offer involves an unfair or exploitative exchange: exploitation and injustice are not the same thing as coercion.
(Michael Taylor, Community, Anarchy and Liberty [Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982], 18 [italics in original; ellipsis added; footnote omitted])
Note from KBJ: Coercion is not exploitation; threats are not offers; liberty is not equality; liberty is not the power to achieve one's ends but rather the absence of constraint. Conflating concepts is a common tactic of the Left, going back at least to Karl Marx. If you can't persuade rationally, engage in obfuscation and persuasive definition.
