Are markets coercive?

Are markets coercive? Contemporary debate is dominated by two answers. The first, longstanding among defenders of free markets, holds that voluntary exchange is non-coercive by definition: coercion enters the picture only when rights are violated. The second, revived from Robert Hale's 1923 essay and embraced today by progressive legal scholars and post-liberal conservatives alike, holds that markets are pervasively coercive because property rights backed by state power constitute a system of mutual coercion. Both answers fail, but the Halean answer fails in the more interesting way. The libertarian answer moralizes coercion, stripping it of evaluative force; the Halean answer de-moralizes coercion, stripping it of discriminating power. If coercion is everywhere, it cannot pick out the arrangements worth criticizing. Drawing on a convergence across the philosophical literature on coercion, the paper develops a third option: identify coercion non-moralistically—as a factual matter of options restricted by another's institutionally backed power—but evaluate its significance in graduated terms, by attention to the significance of the options curtailed, the availability of alternatives, and the directness of compulsion involved. The result is a framework that can distinguish cases of genuinely worrisome market coercion from cases where the concept does no moral work.