My comment on: Finding Liberty Between Vulnerability and Coercion by Adam Gurri

******************************

The products at the grocery store arenít equally relevant to my reality. Fortunately, I get to pick and choose which products I spend my money on. I have the chance to use my money to let the store know which products are the most important to me. The store offers me, and everyone else, the opportunity to substantially participate in the prioritization process. In other words, the store is a market.

The products (shows/movies) on Netflix arenít equally relevant to my reality. Unfortunately, I donít get to pick and choose which products I spend my fees on. I donít have the chance to use my money to let Netflix know which products are the most important to me. Netflix does not offer me, or anyone else, the opportunity to substantially participate in the prioritization process. Netflix is not a market.

Coercion can be defined as preventing people from substantially participating in the prioritization process. With this definition, the government really does not have a monopoly on coercion. Netflix also engages in coercion.

However, the fact of the matter is that hardly anybody wants Netflix to be a market. So the real issue isnít ďdelicately balancingĒ anything. The real issue is figuring out the rules of coercion. When is it beneficial to disregard how relevant things are to peopleís reality? When is it beneficial to prevent people from substantially participating in the prioritization process? When does coercion truly make the world a better place for everyone?