Ah, so you consider yourself an anarchist then? (Not asking this pejoratively; it's a legitimate political philosophy, just one I don't happen to subscribe to.) I feel like coercion is kind of inevitable in some circumstances; I don't think anyone is opposed to forcing a rapist to submit to punishment.

Anyway, that's a different discussion altogether. While I think force may be necessary in some aspects of society, I concede that applying force to the realm of discourse is probably a bad idea.

I leave it to others to apply labels. I just despise criminality and sociopathic assumptions, especially in government.

When someone, such as a rapist or a politician, has proven that they're incapable of peaceful behavior in society, we have the right to defend ourselves from them.

IOW, self-defense isn't coercion. The coercion has already been committed by the criminal. If you're walking down the street and I mug you, I'm applying the force. You, in self-defense, aren't being "violent" in your intent to protect yourself. You're trying to stop the violence I'm committing against you.

I guess what I'm saying is I wish people would worry less about labels and more about principles.

To get back on topic a little, the government using the tactics as laid out by Sunstein is a fraud being perpetrated by the force of government so it rings all kinds of bells.