Yes! Thanks for that. "The distribution of income, to repeat, depends on the relative power of coercion which the different members of the community can exert against one another. Income is the price paid for not using one's coercive weapons. One of these weapons consists of the power to withhold one's labor. Another is the power to consume all that can be bought with one's lawful income instead of investing part of it. Another is the power to call on the government to lock up certain pieces of land or productive equipment. Still another is the power to decline to undertake an enterprise which may be attended with risk. By threatening to use these various weapons, one gets (with or with- out sacrifice) an income in the form of wages, interest, rent or profits. The resulting distribution is very far from being equal, and the in- equalities are very far from corresponding to needs or to sacrifice."
Coercion and Distribution in a Supposedly Non-Coercive State Author(s): Robert L. Hale Source: Political Science Quarterly, Vol. 38, No. 3 (Sep., 1923), pp. 470-494. On Wed, Apr 16, 2014 at 9:00 PM, Eubulides <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Apr 16, 2014, at 6:49 PM, Tom Walker <[email protected]> wrote: > > > These are not state secrets. Nor are they facts disclosed in data reported > by the BLS or the IRS. Just common knowledge -- common sense that doesn't > count for beans in the marginal productivity analysis. Inequality is a > positive fact; coercion is a normative claim. So let's all talk about > inequality as if it has nothing to do with coercion. Let's not talk about > the elephant in the room. What elephant? > > So what's wrong with "inequality"? Framing the debate to be about > "inequality" misses the point that the real problem is coercion. If the > inequality conversation leaves the coercion question up for grabs, you can > be damn sure the right will seize it and run with it. Loser liberals then > will have yet another opportunity to be shocked, shocked that so much > inequality is going on. > > -- > > > ========== > > Hence the conservative fascination with Carl Schmitt, while some liberals > seem to be reluctantly rediscovering Robert Hale. > > E. > > > _______________________________________________ > pen-l mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l > > -- Cheers, Tom Walker (Sandwichman)
_______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
