C2.1 Freedom from Coercion
Human Autonomy. Does the system maximize human freedom and self-determination?
Pass threshold
≥70% report genuine autonomy in major life decisions, validated through revealed preference showing acceptance of initially refused employment/living situations when alternatives exist
Clause by clause:
- ≥70% report genuine autonomy in major life decisions
- validated through revealed preference showing acceptance of initially refused employment/living situations when alternatives exist
What it asks
Eliminate survival-based economic compulsion without creating new forms of control (bureaucratic, social pressure, surveillance)
Why it matters
"Work this job or face homelessness" represents baseline coercion regardless of formal freedom. But replacing market coercion with bureaucratic control (work requirements, behavior conditions, means testing) or social pressure (community surveillance, conformity enforcement) merely trades cages.
How it is measured
Clause 1: the share of adults satisfied with their freedom to choose what they do with their life (Gallup World Poll; published as "freedom to make life choices" in the World Happiness Report data), read as the share reporting genuine autonomy in major life decisions. Clause 2 is aspirational: no agency publishes revealed-preference evidence of this kind, and a 1.0 requires the scoring document to name a study or record that shows it (for example, behavior observed when an unconditional alternative exists). This is the one home of the share of decisions free of coercion; C4.5 no longer measures it. For a design, both clauses are estimated on the same measures.
Indicators
clause 1, Gallup World Poll (World Happiness Report data); clause 2, aspirational.
How scores are anchored
1.0, pass
Structural design removes survival-based compulsion without substituting a comparably coercive replacement. Universal Basic Income (1.0): "Pilots show 65-75% report increased autonomy... genuine choice because survival is not contingent on accepting any available job."
0.5, partial
Meaningfully reduces coercion relative to a harsher baseline but does not eliminate it. Status Quo Market Capitalism (0.5): "Only 15-25% report genuine autonomy... though better than complete absence of choice."
0.0, structural failure
Eliminates one form of coercion only to substitute another of comparable severity, or maximizes economic coercion by design. Centrally Planned Socialism (0.0): "Eliminated market coercion but replaced with state coercion." Libertarian Minarchism (0.0): "Eliminates state coercion but maximizes economic coercion... all market exchanges occur under duress for those lacking capital."
Normative roots
From N3 (Coercion Minimization) + N2 (Labor Non-Necessity).
How the systems score
0.5, partial
CCO-PTF-CIP-SZH, Participatory Economics, Integral, Degrowth Economics, Nordic Social Democracy, Market Socialism, Sovereign Wealth Fund Statism, Georgism / LVT, Ostrom Commons, Islamic Finance, Mutual Credit / LETS, State Capitalism / Singapore, Universal Basic Income, Universal Basic Services, MMT + Job Guarantee, Status Quo Market Capitalism, Fully Automated Luxury Communism, Stakeholder Capitalism
0.0, structural failure
State Capitalism / China, State Capitalism / Qatar, Doughnut Economics, Libertarian Minarchism, Centrally Planned Socialism
Sources
Definition: Paper Section 6; restated in v2.0 (NEEC_Criteria_v2_s45.md, Appendix V). Anchors: Paper Appendix H.7.