"Therefore coercion of the non-invasive, when justifiable at all, is to be justified on the ground that it secures, not a minimum of ' invasion, but a minimum of pain"

Benjamin Tucker, a 19th-century lone wolf anarchist, composed extensively on issues of liberty, browbeating, and the function of the state. The quote you have actually offered deals insight into his views on when coercion is justified, particularly within the context of his more comprehensive philosophy that stresses lessening the imposition on individual liberty.

In this quote, Tucker recommends that if coercion is ever justified, it must not be on the basis that it lessens 'invasion'-- or infringements upon individual flexibility-- however rather since it decreases pain. This shows a practical point of view, prioritizing the decrease of suffering as the main step of whether coercion can be considered acceptable.

When Tucker describes the "non-invasive", he is most likely speaking of actions or habits that do not infringe upon others' rights or autonomy. Normally, in his framework, such activities need to be devoid of interference, as individual liberty is critical. However, Tucker concedes that in some circumstances, browbeating might be necessitated if it serves to relieve higher discomfort or damage. This could relate to avoiding actions that, while not inherently intrusive, might indirectly cause substantial discomfort or suffering.

Underlying this view is a nuanced understanding of liberty that does not see it as absolute. Rather, Tucker acknowledges that the intricacies of human society sometimes require balancing specific flexibilities with the more comprehensive effects of such flexibilities when they result in harm.

In essence, Tucker's declaration is a suggestion that while the conservation of liberty is vital, ethical governance-- or social agreements amongst people-- must likewise think about the outcomes of actions. Justifiable coercion ought to concentrate on lowering harm and pain instead of strictly restricting intervention based on the idea of reducing interference alone. This perspective challenges policymakers and individuals to carefully weigh their choices against the capacity for suffering they may accidentally cause.