To go back to the original point, reinforced by Ian's reference to Robert Hale, wealth inequality presupposes coercion. Coercion isn't necessarily "bad". Workers collectively striking for shorter hours is coercive. But, importantly, it is not coherent to talk of inequality as if it is something distinct from coercion and thus to set up a false dichotomy between a supposedly value-neutral inequality and value-laden coercion, as libertarians consistently do with the tacit approval of the so-called distinction between positive and normative economics.
Whether to call rich people sociopaths or mother-fuckers doesn't advance the analysis. On Sun, Apr 20, 2014 at 4:57 AM, Billy O'Connor <[email protected]> wrote: > Carrol Cox <[email protected]> writes: > > > Gar: Beyond my scope, but I've been told by people in the field that > > "Sociopath" is no longer accepted as a technical term. > > > > Then there is _no_ excuse for using it for analysis. It merely means > > something like Mother-Fucker -- and explains nothing. > > I've taken to using the term "Affluenza sufferers". > _______________________________________________ > 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
