We agree to the first part of that certainly, and I can technically agree with you to your second. However, at what point is the consequence so severe that the individual feels compelled to do something they otherwise wouldn't?

If a person says they will kill your daughter if you don't give them 20k, we agree that would be a form of force, right? It's not that they actually killed her, but the threat of the consequence is grave enough to create that compulsion. What about raping her? What about punching her? What about food poisoning? I get it, these things are physical violence, so it fits your definition. What about bullying her for the rest of her life and telling her she's a worthless piece of trash? What about harassing her to the point of tarnishing her reputation so she can never get a job in a certain industry? What about emotional, sexual conditioning her for a decade so she will do whatever they want? These are not physically violent actions, but, many people with means would gladly pay to spare their children from that kind of treatment, right? They aren't technically forced to do so, but I mean, would they part with their money absent that threat? The easy answer is to say that you would turn to the government or your community, but what if the compulsion comes from the government?

Going on with that thought experiment, we agree that the employer, being a free citizen, can make choices in their best interest, and that that supersedes the desires of their employees. However, the employee's choices are only affected within that subset of the free market, which reduces the impact of any one employer. If an employer makes a choice that affects their employees too severely, the free market can correct when a different employee seizes the opportunity to hire workers looking for a different environment within their field. This can't happen when the government forces entire submarkets or markets to obey their rules or go under. Employer rights are now gone, and that is passed down to the employee.

Because I'm stubborn, I will use another analogy: You have been an administrator for 30 years and you have one child entering college and another two years away. You are set to retire in 10 more years, and you're in line for a promotion at work. There is a shooting by a disgruntled worker at a business, and the ATF decides that too dangerous for any company to have an employee with a firearm. They issue a massive fine to any company that hires employees with registered weapons. They aren't taking people's weapons away, so the Supreme Court, who is now a majority of progressives, rules in favor of the law and doesn't see it as a violation of the constitution.

So, we agree that you are forced to make a choice now, which happens, and even though you are technically correct that you are free to make that choice, do you really feel like that's an option? Can't you equally say you're being forced to give up your arms?

If a nurse has worked 15 years in the industry and worked their salary up to 80k and is the primary breadwinner in their single parent home, what job is going to provide an adequate alternative? They have kids in college or mouths to feed. They can't just make a lateral move into a different field, at least not without the huge risk of losing 30-35k by switching fields or the even bigger risk of spending another 60k for college. Is that really a choice for some families? So, even though I concede that you are technically right. I don't think it's hyperbole to say the government forced many people to get the vaccine by circumventing the free market.

---