>> There is no ‘neutral’ or ‘free’ position: the market is regulated one way >> or the other. And in either case, there will be economic consequences, >> concrete distributions of wealth…. The question, at the end of the day, is >> not whether to favor ‘freedom’ or ‘constraint’—in both cases, we are both >> freely and coercively imposing a legal regime with or without options. The >> question instead is to determine exactly who benefits and by how much, and >> more importantly, to assess politically and normatively the justice of those >> outcomes.
>> It is precisely that normative assessment that is prevented by faith in >> natural order and market efficiency. So long as the distributional >> consequences are viewed as the natural outcome of a natural order, they >> become far more normal and necessary. Their assessment becomes practically >> futile, or at least beside the point, for it makes little sense to challenge >> the justice or appropriateness of such natural outcomes. It is only when we >> let go of the illusion of natural order that we truly open the door to a >> full and robust political assessment of those distributional consequences—as >> well as of the politically and socially produced norms and rules that >> regulate markets and shape those outcomes.<< -- Barnard Harcourt, The Illusion of Free Markets: Punishment and the Myth of Natural Order -- 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 [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
