Dec 4 When is an incentive coercive?

This coming Wednesday at the Ideas Cafe, we will be discussing conditions when choices are made under coercion rather than free will.  Specifically, we will concentrate on incentives and whether we are always free to choose when an incentive is involved.

The topic came to me at Mano's philosophy cafe a week ago when we were discussing whether we know what is best for us. 

During the discussion, Mano put forward an example that to offer someone a million dollars to dance naked on the table in that room is coercive.

Do you think it is coercive?  After all, a million dollars is quite an incentive even if dancing naked on the table in front of a crowd is quite offensive to you. 

If you agree to do something that you would otherwise not do because the reward justifies it, is that coercion?

Or is it a free choice of being able to choose the money over the embarrassment of the act?  You are not forced to take the money,  you are merely offered the choice.

If you think this is a trivial example, consider the importance of defining coercion.

Our society depends on people making contracts with each other to perform task for a consideration of return in money or other goods and services. 

The underlying foundation is that we enter into these contracts of our own free will and not coerced.  Therefore, we are free and not oppressed.

So the sex worker freely decided to provide sexual services at a certain price because that is enough incentive to do so.  Or is the sexual worker coerced to do something she/he would rather not do if not for the sum offered?

Will most of us go to work if not for the money?  Are we coerced to work?

Are companies coerced by unions to sign "fair" contracts?

What if we now go back to the dancing naked on the table example and change the incentive from a million dollars to twenty dollars and offer it to someone who has not had a decent meal for a while for lack of money?

The incentive is not so great but the demand is more urgent.

If you think this is coercive, then how about the government's "fair" approach of choosing suppliers through competitive tender. 

Let the lowest price bidder get the job.  Good way to look after taxpayers value for money.

Should the buyer also look at the supplier to see if they are about to lay off employees if they do not get this contract?  We can see that the supplier is coerced to offer a lower contract bid in order to keep his employees employed.

Does the buyer have a duty to pay a higher price for what he need in order not to be coercive in his tendering practices?

Should all suppliers operate on the verge of bankruptcy so that they will get the next contract from "ethical" buyers?

What about suppliers who have a cost advantage over others?  If they can produce an item for a dollar and someone offers them two dollars for it,  are they coerced to take the two dollars rather than the one dollar?  Are they coerced to give up their honesty by not telling the buyer that the seller would have sold it for a dollar?

Should the buyer buy from another supplier that truly needed $2 to make the item instead of $1?

What about liquidation or "going out of business" sales.  Should be not participate? Help the business owner by buying his remaining stock?  Pay him regular price when he is offering the items at a discount?

What about "sweat shops" in developing countries? How far do we need to get into our supplier's situations when we buy something?  Should we refuse a supplier because his price offering is too low even if his employees "willingly" work for him at his labor rates?

What about the supplier's supplier?

Do we know how much of the extra money we pay for "fair trade" goods end up where?

Are we paying extra to feel good but negligent in follow up?

How much time do we have to do all this?