Designing Systems Where Coercion Is Structurally Impossible

Most institutions—hospitals, welfare agencies, workplaces, schools—claim to prioritize “care,” “efficiency,” or “fairness.” Yet behind polished mission statements and talk of limited resources, they often quietly discard the very people who most need help.

• Some hospitals rely on actuarial medicine to flag “high-cost” patients for denial-by-delay.

• Welfare offices bury applicants under constant re-verification.

• Autism interventions like ABA gauge success by compliance, not self-determination.

These practices aren’t flukes; they reflect designs that normalize exclusion as routine.

But what if we systematically blocked institutions from filtering out “difficult” cases in the first place? Below, we outline how to create architectures that render coercion functionally impossible—so no one is forced to prove they deserve help or feign “normalcy” just to survive.

The Coercive Machinery Hiding in Plain Sight

Coercion rarely shows up as overt force. Instead, it thrives in seemingly “neutral” processes that quietly deter those deemed too “costly” or “noncompliant.”

• Healthcare & Risk Scoring
  Predictive algorithms often tag older, disabled, or uninsured patients as expensive, nudging them into endless waitlists or extra paperwork. Officially, no one is denied outright. In practice, people with the greatest needs get funneled out.

• Conditional Welfare
  Rigid deadlines, complicated forms, and repeated proofs of poverty or disability effectively weed out those who struggle with time, paperwork, or stable housing. Labeled “fiscal accountability,” this approach often abandons those who need support the most.

• Behavior-Based Therapies
  Methods like ABA reward adherence to “normal” behaviors. If someone fails to perform them, they risk losing access to therapy. This frames care as contingent on compliance rather than supporting authentic well-being.

Such gatekeeping systematically sidelines folks who can’t meet rigid demands. While framed as “managing resources,” these tactics often offload the highest-need individuals onto the margins society claims it wants to protect.

---

Mild Reforms Won’t Solve the Core Problem

Sometimes, institutions adopt simpler forms, fairness dashboards, or incremental expansions of coverage. These moves soften certain edges but fail to uproot the logic that resources are scarce and must be saved by excluding those deemed least “worthwhile.”

• Transparent Gatekeeping Is Still Gatekeeping
  Releasing an algorithm’s code doesn’t change its function if it still flags high-need people for slow denial.

• Awareness Trainings
  No matter how staff are educated, if the official policy still says “prove you meet our threshold,” quiet exclusion remains.

• More Compassionate Language
  Calling it “care” or “protection” doesn’t erase the fact that missing a deadline, being too “expensive,” or failing to conform can get you shunted out.

Incremental fixes address symptoms—like too much paperwork—while leaving core structures intact. We must reject the premise that help is a special privilege, contingent on performance or “worthiness.”

Photo by Clay Banks on Unsplash

Four Principles for Non-Coercive Systems

1. Unconditional Access

Stop asking who “deserves” help. Essential services—shelter, healthcare, mental health support—go to anyone who seeks them.

2. Radical Transparency

Any algorithm, budget, or gatekeeping procedure must be publicly visible. If a public clinic denies someone for being “too high-risk,” the institution should reveal exactly how it decided that.

3. Inherent Trust

Instead of forcing repeated “proof of desperation” or continuous verification, assume honesty unless there’s strong evidence otherwise.

4. Shared Governance

Marginalized groups—disabled, undocumented, or neurodivergent individuals—must hold binding power in setting rules and budgets.

---

Confronting the Politics of “Scarcity”

Leaders often say we can’t serve everyone, implying we must ration help. Yet they invest heavily in compliance squads, risk-scoring software, or anti-fraud technology—money that could fund direct services.

Real-world data indicate unconditional approaches are cheaper over time because they cut down on crisis interventions (like ER visits, shelters, or policing).

Declaring “no budget” typically reflects political priorities, not absolute limits.

Steps Toward Non-Coercive Institutions

1. Lock In Stable Funding
   Programs reliant on fleeting grants risk gatekeeping when budgets tighten. Legislated or guaranteed public funding ensures unconditional models can’t be quietly defunded.

2. Write Rights into Law
   If healthcare or housing is a guaranteed right, institutional managers can’t revert to subtle rationing without breaking the law.

3. Embed Community Oversight
   Give communities—especially those historically excluded—binding power to oversee policy, ensuring the system can’t reintroduce hidden filters.

We’re not talking about small reforms, but a radical realignment: from gatekeeping and suspicion to open-doors and trust, from paternalistic demands to shared governance.

---

We Can Design Coercion Out

Structural coercion leads to real human harm: the person who dies waiting for “paperwork to clear,” the family that remains unhoused due to repeated “eligibility” missteps, the autistic child forced to mask in therapy programs that prize compliance above all.

Eliminating these daily indignities starts with refusing to let institutions quietly cast people aside. If we design systems so that exclusion can’t happen in the shadows, we put an end to the subtle ways we discard “non-ideal” individuals.

Photo by Scott Bridges on Unsplash

Coercion is ultimately a design choice—and thus we can design for its absence. When we shift budgets from gatekeeping to direct support, measure success by inclusion rather than cost-cutting, and give real authority to marginalized communities, coercion becomes not just distasteful but practically unworkable.

That’s the vision of a non-coercive architecture: a world in which no one must pass a stressful test or fake normalcy simply to exist. By making institutions truly open, trustworthy, and community-driven, we build a future where everyone belongs—no strings attached, and no gatekeeper waiting to say no.