Re: Foucault
PioneerTom (pioneertom@aol.com)
29 Nov 1994 13:45:23 -0500
In article <28NOV199412543096@elroy.uh.edu>, st26h@elroy.uh.edu (JAMES
BENTHALL) writes:
1.) BTW, power can be defined as the relatively benign "influence" rather
than the harsh-sounding "coercion"--although influence is a form of
coercion.
and,
2.) There is no such thing as a "non-coercive" market.
Again the influence of the marxists is still apallingly evident.
1.) The best definition of power is the one closest to that in it's
original
use in physics: Energy applied to work=power. To say that it "can be"
coercive is correct. To say that ANY form of power is equal to that used
coercively is a blatant disregard of the fact that people DO act
voluntarily, most of the time. Which leads us to :
2.) The idea that there is no free market(non-coercive). This can only be
sustained with a definition of coercion so broad that it loses all
meaning.
A market may not be perfectly free and yet provide substantial degrees
of satisfaction to it's participants. The denial of possible freedom in
the market found here is hauntingly similar to the denial of possible
freedom
in the realm of politics by the fascists and others in the 1930's. We are
fortunate, however, that this particular denial, that of free markets, is
now past it's peak and declining around the world. Would that the
"post-modern"/cultural constructivist/ multicult.. crowd could recognize
that.
Foucalt and his cohorts seem little more than people trying to find
new excuses to continue the sneers of the 60's culture at the essentials
of the continuing industrial revolution. Most specifically at other
peoples
freedom. Wrong then, wrong now.
Tom Billings
pioneertom@aol.com
|