raghu
> Knowing David's thinking a little bit, I suspect he only objects to
> the paternalism of governments not of private actors because
> governments have the power of coercion. (In this mythical world, of
> course, advertisers and corporations have no power of coercion....)
It seems to me that undue influence on individual decisions involves
more than coercion by the government ("pay taxes or else"). It also
involves coercion by companies ("if you don't work an extra hour
without pay, you're fired") and the exertion of "soft power"
(brainwashing by advertising, etc.)
By the way, there's important part of undue influence that should be
mentioned: for example, the neoliberal insistence that all goods and
services should be provided only via the market (pushed through
governments using by their superior political clout) arbitrarily
excludes those without much money from benefiting from non-market
goods and services. If the city park suddenly starts charging an
entrance fee, for example, only those with money can benefit. (Of
course, they'd have to build a wall around the park so that non-payers
cannot benefit. This is the basic idea behind the "walled community.")
--
Jim Devine / "Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti." (Go your own
way and let people talk.) -- Karl, paraphrasing Dante.
_______________________________________________
pen-l mailing list
pen-l@lists.csuchico.edu
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
