Pre-Requisite Articles:
Deriving the Invariant
The Invariant
Agency & Identity

This document proposes a core model for anarchist systems — a hub of invariant constraints from which all voluntary societies (spokes) may be built.

It is published as a Request for Comments (RFC) for peer review and collaborative refinement.

This RFC aims to operationalize the definition of Anarchism.

—

You don’t support coercion.
“I don’t coerce” – at least, that’s what you tell yourself.

You believe in freedom.
You reject rulers.
You say everything should be voluntary.

And somehow… you participate in coercion every single day.
We all do.

Not because we’re evil…
Because you don’t actually understand what coercion is.
And if you don’t understand coercion, you don’t truly understand anarchism.

The Problem: Everyone Defines Coercion Wrong

Most people think coercion means violence.

If there’s no gun, no fist, no direct threat—then it must be voluntary, right?
Wrong.

That definition falls apart immediately.

Because it can’t explain:

Why taxation feels forced even when no one is pointing a gun at you
Why fraud is wrong even if no physical force is used
Why self-defense isn’t the same thing as assault
Why some “agreements” feel like traps instead of choices

If your definition can’t handle those cases, it’s not a definition.
It’s a slogan.

What Coercion Actually Is

Coercion is simple, but powerful enough to make or break the model of anarchist systems.

It’s not force.
It’s not pressure.
It’s not inequality.

The definition:
Coercion is the initiated override of someone else’s choice.

That’s it.
All of that other stuff is just noise.

There are only three ways coercion happens:

Force or threat of force
Fraud or deception
Expanding control beyond what was agreed to

That’s the whole model.

If none of those are present, it’s not coercion.
If any of them are, it is.

The One Thing That Actually Matters

Here’s where most people break.

They focus on force.
They focus on outcomes.
They focus on fairness.

But none of that determines coercion.
The only thing that matters is who started it.

In a word: Initiation.

That’s the line to measure against.

Ask the Gen-X teacher question:
“Who started it?”

It’s that simple to evaluate coercion.

Self-Defense Isn’t Coercion

Let’s make this simple.

Someone attacks you.
You fight back.
Is that coercion?

No.

Because you didn’t initiate anything.
You didn’t override their choice first.
You responded to someone who already did.

That’s not rulership.
That’s stopping someone attempting to rule over you.

This is where most arguments collapse—because people treat all force as equal.
It’s not.

Initiated force creates rulers.
Responsive force stops them.
It’s simple.

It also proves the “Non-Aggression Principle” is an absolute of Anarchism.

“What About…” (Let’s Kill the Confusion)

This is where people usually try to escape the model or make exceptions.
Let’s go through the common ones and apply our invariant of “voluntary order without rulers”.

“Is a low wage coercion?”

False.
That’s reality.

Scarcity exists whether you like it or not.
Needing food isn’t something your employer created.

An offer you don’t like isn’t coercion.
It’s just an offer.
You can refuse it.
In other words, your particular circumstances weren’t created by the employer – they didn’t initiate your problems.

“Is exclusion coercion?”

False.
Refusing to associate with someone is not coercion.
It’s the opposite. It’s the expression of the individuals choice to associate.
Forcing inclusion creates rulers.

If you can’t say no, nothing you say yes to matters.

“Is taxation coercion?”

True.
Because it doesn’t matter whether you agree.
The system overrides your choice either way.

That’s initiation.
Initiation is the attempted creation of a ruler.
Involuntary taxation is rulership.

“Is fraud coercion?”

True.
Because it removes your ability to make a real choice.
If you’re being lied to, you’re not choosing – you’re being manipulated.

That’s just coercion without a weapon.

And the removal of your choice creates a ruler over you.

The Trap Most People Fall Into

People confuse bad situations with coercion.
They see hardship, inequality, or limited options and assume someone must be forcing it.
But not all pressure is coercion.

Not all constraint is control.
Sometimes reality just sucks.
And if you start calling reality coercion, you end up justifying actual coercion to “fix” it.
That’s how every system of control gets built.

Where Rulers Actually Come From

Rulers don’t come from power.
They don’t come from wealth.
They don’t come from organization.

They come from one thing:
The ability to initiate control over someone else’s choices.

That’s it.

The moment someone can override your agency without your consent – you have a ruler.

What you call it doesn’t matter.

Government.
Authority.
System.
Collective.

If it can initiate control, it’s a ruler.

The Rule That Doesn’t Break

Anarchism isn’t complicated.

It’s not an economic system.
It’s not a culture.
It’s not a lifestyle.

It runs on constraints, and one of them is:
No initiated coercion.

Not “no force.”
Not “no inequality.”
Not “no conflict.”

Simply:
No one gets to make the first move against your ability to choose.
Because once that happens, freedom is gone—and everything else is just branding.

So yeah… you probably don’t support coercion.

But if you don’t understand it:

You tolerate it.
You justify it.
You participate in it.

And that means… You’re still living under rulers.
Whether you admit it or not is on you.