Earlier quoted context omitted.
Like I said, your point is "so high-level and abstract as to be useless." I expect far more people have run a red light because they were texting than as pushback against coercion. It appears far more kids have failed to receive their MMR shots due to pandemic-related interruptions in children’s medical visits than parental pushback against coercion.
> Like I said, your point is "so high-level and abstract as to be useless." It is not useless. It tells you coercion, if applied to fix these other reasons, could be counterproductive.
Here's a counter-example. Assume 99% of the people who run a red light / haven't vaccinated their kid, do so for some reason totally disconnected from reacting to coercion, and 1% of the people are fighting The Man.
Now we change the coercive circumstances [1] so that 98% of those people now stop at a red light / have vaccinated their kids, the 1% still haven't changed, and an additional 1% have joined them.
That means the overall number of red light runners / non-vaccinated children go down significantly.
Which means those changes are productive.
[1] For traffic lights this might include: higher fines, more active police enforcement, propaganda campaigns about the dangers of running a red light, changing the lights to be more visible. For vaccination these might include: remind parents of vaccination requirements, provide in-school and home-visit vaccination services, and increase propaganda campaigns.