As always, this is an interesting and informative article from this author, one that suggests many questions. One question is whether the presumption that "coercion" is always 'unjust' is valid. I think the difference is, as John Locke recognized, arbitrariness. Coercion that is not arbitrary can exist if the process that ends with someone being required to defer to the rules of society, including the formulation of those rules, is not arbitrary. A properly functioning democratic political process provides precisely that.