On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 1:06 PM, David Shemano <[email protected]> wrote: > I skimmed the TNR article regarding the company, and I agree that the company > has created a "pay to play" environment that would make me uncomfortable. > They are approaching a line that is very easy to cross. But I think where we > disagree is our use of the word "coercion." Some hypotheticals: > > 1. "I am Hugo Chavez. After the election, I will be reviewing the voter > rolls. If you voted for my opponent, you will be fired from your job at the > state-owned energy plant." > 2. " I am the President of owner of Century Mine. I only hire Republicans, > so if you do not make a contribution to my favorite PAC, you won't be working > for me." > 3. "I am the President of Century Mine. If you do not make a contribution > to my favorite PAC, I will not contract with your company so supply my > business." > 4. "I am David Koch. Employees, I think Obama is ruining the country. Here > is a pamphlet. I encourage you to vote for candidates who support my > principles. > 5. "I am a Catholic bishop. If you support abortion on demand, I will not > hire you to work at our local school. > 6. "I am a movie producer. I will never work with Mel Gibson."
These are all potentially coercive. Whether they are actually coercive to me is purely a function of how much power the person involved has. In your examples, I'd say (1)-(3) are coercive. (4) is certainly obnoxious, but as a practical matter I think it is more likely to hurt than help the Koch's candidates. As for the Catholic church there are plenty of things wrong with that institution that are more troublesome than its policies on abortion. Finally Mel Gibson is perfectly capable of protecting his own rights, so I don't think we need to get particularly exercised over him. Coercion only occurs when there is a power imbalance. -raghu. _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
