Greetings Economists, On Nov 2, 2006, at 9:21 PM, raghu wrote:
what has disability or depression got to do with this?
Doyle; Because while the dictionary says 'extreme eccentricity and recklessness' the word also means insane in English. A lunatic goes insane as influenced by the 'lunar' cycles. And while the connection to 'insanity' is tenuous, it perpetuates a wide spread belief about mental or cognitive disabilities in the 'left' that broadly says about the opposition (whomever) they are crazy. The political point? The bottom of society, the worst thing in society is a 'lunatic' or mentally disabled person. So no matter what else we might say about whom we oppose we get the point they are not with us by saying they are disabled mentally. From a disabled rights perspective this is a serious conceptual problem. If you want you can see Amartya Sen's efforts on Disabled Rights here: http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:gNVnh8e09NgJ: siteresources.worldbank.org/DISABILITY/214576-1092421729901/20291152/ Amartya_Sen_Speech.doc+Amartya+Sen+justice+and+disability&hl=en&gl=us&ct =clnk&cd=1 But to be specific in this case, these widespread concepts of political opposition at their base represent not insight about behavior, instead reflect an unrealistic and unfair labeling of persons as insane. Labeling as such to not realistically talk about insanity as a disability for whom egalitarian movements like Marxism would provide justice and relief, but as a label to readily tell all that person is 'insane' therefore wrong. It matters not the useless concept of lunacy if the common perception is they are insane. For what does it mean for a person in a realistic sense be depressed, or schizophrenic if they lose all rights then? And be assured mental illness does mean losing all social rights. It unlike virtually any other human condition means one can lose every shred of rights in most societies. thanks, Doyle
