Hayek defines coercion so narrowly that only self-serving constraint counts

Evidence

For Hayek, as long as these pressures are not coercive (which in this discussion he defines, tellingly, as “being in someone else’s interest rather than our own”), they are legitimate and valuable. They are especially important in contesting moral claims that emanate from sources other than tradition and that challenge family, property, and freedom. — Wendy Brown, In the Ruins of Neoliberalism, 175

Categorization

• XREF: connects to: Hayekian freedom means coercion-free endeavor within tradition, not emancipation from norms — Wendy Brown, In the Ruins of Neoliberalism: The Rise…, 159; Hayek faulted conservatives for embracing coercion when used for their purposes — Wendy Brown, In the Ruins of Neoliberalism: The Rise…, 201; Hayek held liberalism adaptive, maximizing spontaneity and minimizing coercion — Philip Mirowski & Dieter Plehwe (eds.), The Road from Mont Pèlerin: The Making…, 565 (+1 more)

Broader Connections

• Hayek faulted conservatives for embracing coercion when used for their purposes #qualifies (0.85) — Wendy Brown, In the Ruins of Neoliberalism, 201
• Hayek held liberalism adaptive, maximizing spontaneity and minimizing coercion #complicates (0.80) — Philip Mirowski & Dieter Plehwe (eds.), The Road from Mont Pèlerin, 565
• The form of coercion matters more than its specific content #expands (0.75) — Georg Simmel, The Sociology of Georg Simmel, 7373