Demands happen in a relatively personal manner, generally one person to another. Language that obscures choice happens in larger contexts to varying degrees. Such communication happens in small contexts like a classroom or workplace, and on a cultural and societal level as well. Communication that obscures choice speaks in violation of the moral sphere and the ends principle. It works as the language of the dominator model and the conformity that model enforces of those within its sway. This model specifically and conformity generally violate the ends principle as an inherent element of their functioning. When people accept domination and conformity, they deny their own right to stand and perform as an end in themselves and become a means to the end of the dominator and its conformist structure. When we conform, we become a means to the end of conformity and the dominator. Language that obscures choice obscures our search for the becoming self because it eliminates the possibility and power of our individuation as whole beings. It inevitably takes us from what we think is right and what we "want to" in life to what others declare right and what we "have to" as demanded.
When we hear the "have to" that obscures choice, we hear a threat. You "have to" because if you don't do what you "have to" do, the speaker of the "have to" will punish you or see that you are punished in some way or another and by some force or other. This takes us all back to the judgments and punishments of childhood. When the child with the toy of many pieces hears that she/he has to do A with that toy rather than B, the parental figure inherently makes a threat, perhaps of taking the toy away. The toy will disappear until the child agrees to act in accordance with the "have to" that has become associated with that toy, agrees to conform generally making no sense out of the situation aside from learning about implicit if not explicit threats, "have tos," punishments, and deprivation.
In our vulnerability of wanting unconditional positive regard, we can often agree to conform because we develop a meaning perspective that tells us we simply "have to" when we hear a "have to" in the air because rejection hovers there as well. As in childhood, somehow all this coercion happens for our own good and serves a higher purpose. When we get told that something is happening for our good, we might understand that as implicitly saying that our end and our Thou have gone out of the situation. We also know that what follows will come out of creating a fear of loss in us and will continue to teach us how much we "have to" fear in order to live our lives in a proper, dominator, conformist way.
As with rebellious children, we have the power to say "No" to such coercion. All we have to do is deny that we fear the punishment the "have to" implicitly signifies. A student doesn't "have to" turn in a paper by the deadline (the word signifies not a very subtle threat) if the student doesn't care about the grade. If you don't fear the loss, you don't fear the "have to." Then you don't have to do what you are told. Ultimately the only absolute "have to" we face comes in death. We can always exercise our right and power in saying, as do children in rebellion: "Go ahead and hit me. You can't hurt me." For a child, the hurt has already happened, and that child has given up the hope for the unconditional and takes the highly conditional attention provided when the rebellious, insubordinate "No" is spoken.
In the quest of aspiration, as with the search for the becoming self, we can find ourselves lost in a dark wood of "No." What leads us on into the quest and the search is some form our "Yes" to ourselves and to the world around us. Language that obscures choice can deflect us from that "Yes" even when we deny its immediate power by saying and acting out our "No." The other difficulty arises when we develop "No" into a primary meaning perspective. Such a "No" denies us real access to the becoming self because we wind up conforming to that "No" in situations where "No" distorts the situation and our response to it. We can become transfixed on "No" which makes it nearly impossible to say "Yes" to life in spite of everything. In a book called The Now Habit, Neil Fiore instructs us in getting past procrastination, a choice in life many own up to as something they "be." "I am a procrastinator," they say. In our internal dialogue when something appears a good thing to do, we tell ourselves that we "have to" do it. As soon as we say "have to," we say "No" in response: "You're not the boss of me" as the phrase goes. The "No" gets in the way of getting the thing done, and goes undone even in the face of a very real consequence. During a discussion of that very point, one student admitted that she had procrastinated writing a check for the electric company. She had the money and the checks, she just said "No" to having to write the check and send it. The electric company said "No" to her "No" and turned her power off and charged her a new hook-up fee. In saying "No" in that way, she and many others of us actually restrict our choices as much if not more than does the language that obscures choice. "No" often obscures choice in and of itself.