> I think it should mostly include things that physically alter or arrest man's body or property. Ah, yes, this makes significantly more sense. > Maybe I mean

> I think it should mostly include things that physically alter or arrest man's body or property. Ah, yes, this makes significantly more sense. > Maybe I mean "violate natural rights" rather than "coerce". Well, "coerce" obviously has a "or threaten to do so" and a "in order to cause or prevent certain behaviour" tacked onto it's definition, but "violate natural rights" otherwise seems like a plausible definition in and of itself; the question that immediately follows being what qualifies as a natural right. Absence of unprovoked physical violence certainly sounds like it would be included in that, but short of contrived and circular definitions of "violence" and "physical", it isn't really sufficient.