Econlib

The Library

Other Sites

Front Page arrow Titles (by Subject) arrow Do Offers Coerce Freedom? - Literature of Liberty, October/December 1978, vol. 1, No. 4

Return to Title Page for Literature of Liberty, October/December 1978, vol. 1, No. 4

Search this Title:

Also in the Library:

Subject Area: Political Theory

Do Offers Coerce Freedom? - Leonard P. Liggio, Literature of Liberty, October/December 1978, vol. 1, No. 4 [1978]

Edition used:

Literature of Liberty: A Review of Contemporary Liberal Thought was published first by the Cato Institute (1978-1979) and later by the Institute for Humane Studies (1980-1982) under the editorial direction of Leonard P. Liggio.

Part of: Literature of Liberty: A Review of Contemporary Liberal Thought, 20 vols. 19781-982

About Liberty Fund:

Liberty Fund, Inc. is a private, educational foundation established to encourage the study of the ideal of a society of free and responsible individuals.


Do Offers Coerce Freedom?

Theodore Benditt

  • University of Southern California

“Threats and Offers.” The Personalist 52 (October 1977): 382–384.

Can offers ever be coercive and thus limit freedom? The author makes an affirmative case by examining the various ways in which Smith might communicate something to Jones to get Jones to do act A: (1) I (Smith) make your (Jones) present situation worse unless you do A; (2) I will prevent your present situation from improving unless you do A; (3) Your present situation will become worse; and (4) Your present situation won't become better (without my doing anything) unless you do A in order to get me to help it improve.

Of these four motivations, (1) and (2) seem to be the threats, whereas (3) and (4) are apparently offers. The distinction depends upon whether a deliberate act of Smith's makes things worse or fails to improve them. However, it can be argued that (3) and (4) are threats if Smith has an obligation either to prevent Jones's situation from deteriorating or to help that situation to improve.

Given this foundation, Benditt argues that some offers can be coercive. In particular, where Smith takes advantage of the fact that Jones's alternatives are all repugnant by making a somewhat less repugnant offer, Smith might be said to “coerce” Jones and limit Jones's freedom.