|
Post by rmarks1 on Sept 17, 2017 19:08:42 GMT -5
I Googled "Foucault the Libertarian" and got a lot of hits. This is just the first one.
Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 18, 2017 17:28:38 GMT -5
I wonder if he actually managed to produce supporting quotes for those points if he were pressed about it. After all, one of Foucault's major works, Discipline and Punish, specifically tries to reveal that what we think of as the era of classical liberalism were actually the glory days of prison power and disciplinarianism. For example - before Foucault, people remembered Jeremy Bentham mostly as a liberal thinker; after Foucault published Discipline and Punish, he became remembered as the inventor of the (in his eyes) perfect prison.
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Sept 18, 2017 20:48:06 GMT -5
I wonder if he actually managed to produce supporting quotes for those points if he were pressed about it. After all, one of Foucault's major works, Discipline and Punish, specifically tries to reveal that what we think of as the era of classical liberalism were actually the glory days of prison power and disciplinarianism. For example - before Foucault, people remembered Jeremy Bentham mostly as a liberal thinker; after Foucault published Discipline and Punish, he became remembered as the inventor of the (in his eyes) perfect prison. Strictly speaking, Jeremy Bentham wasn't a classic liberal. He was a Utilitarian and advocated government action to secure "the greatest good for the greatest number. No libertarian would have designed a "perfect prison." "Bentham also condemned the belief in natural rights on the grounds that it inspired violence and bloodshed, as seen in the excesses of the French Revolution. Bentham at first believed that enlightened and public-spirited statesmen would overcome conservative stupidity and institute progressive reforms to promote public happiness." www.utilitarianism.com/bentham.htmBob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 19, 2017 11:16:46 GMT -5
He wasn't talking about libertarianism in its Randian form, though, but economic liberalism, i.e. Classical Liberalism of which the utilitarians were one of several successors.
Modern libertarians would more fit into Foucault's description of "neoliberalism" which he characterized as a movement of private capitalism in order to "colonize" and take control of the public sphere.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 19, 2017 11:18:18 GMT -5
If you want to read Foucault's thoughts on neoliberalism and libertarianism in the original, then I suggest his lecture series The Birth of Biopolitics that specifically deals with liberalism as an intellectual movement to curtail state power. I've even found a free copy in PDF form here: 1000littlehammers.files.wordpress.com/2010/02/birth_of_biopolitics.pdfIf you don't want to read it, here is a summary: blogs.law.columbia.edu/foucault1313/2016/01/23/introducing-the-birth-of-biopolitics/Of note is, specifically, this quote from Birth of Biopolitics: "Panopticism" is what Foucault calls the desire for a total surveillance state in Discipline and Punish; it is, by his argument, a logical end point for a society that relies on disciplinary power and surveillance to deal with criminals.
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Sept 20, 2017 22:25:26 GMT -5
If you want to read Foucault's thoughts on neoliberalism and libertarianism in the original, then I suggest his lecture series The Birth of Biopolitics that specifically deals with liberalism as an intellectual movement to curtail state power. I've even found a free copy in PDF form here: 1000littlehammers.files.wordpress.com/2010/02/birth_of_biopolitics.pdfIf you don't want to read it, here is a summary: blogs.law.columbia.edu/foucault1313/2016/01/23/introducing-the-birth-of-biopolitics/Of note is, specifically, this quote from Birth of Biopolitics: "Panopticism" is what Foucault calls the desire for a total surveillance state in Discipline and Punish; it is, by his argument, a logical end point for a society that relies on disciplinary power and surveillance to deal with criminals. Thank you for those links. There seems to be a problem of terminology here. Foucault refers to the policies of the German and American governments as "neoliberal." In fact, these are Crony Capitalist policies with heavy government involvement in the economy. I haven't finished reading The Birth of Biopolitics yet. Let's see what else will turn up. Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 21, 2017 6:18:11 GMT -5
They are neoliberal in the sense that they were justified with neoliberal ideological positions. Foucault does not seem to make a moral judgement and, as I pointed out in the other thread, I don't think he even draws a distinction between "real" libertarian policies and "crony" libertarian policies.
This is a function of his concept of power which, likewise, draws no real distinction between governmental power and privately-controlled power: Disciplinary Techniques can be found in privately-owned factories just as well as they can be found in prisons.
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Sept 21, 2017 22:24:11 GMT -5
They are neoliberal in the sense that they were justified with neoliberal ideological positions. Specifically how? Which positions were used for justification? Well the distinctions are there to be drawn. Either you are giving more power and control to the government or you are taking their power away. You can't get away from government power. They will arrest you. But you can always get away from priviate power by saying "I quit! Take this job and shove it!" Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 22, 2017 6:33:38 GMT -5
And that is the insurmountable point of contention between libertarianism and Foucault's theory of power.
In Foucault's theory, Power is not a thing you have or don't have. It arises from interpersonal relationships and organizational structures. And in Foucault's theory, any relationship where one side can tell the other what to do is a power relationship.
A contractual relationship where both parties are in theory free to walk away at any point is still a power relationship when that contract effectively puts one party in control of the other's life.
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Sept 22, 2017 11:07:00 GMT -5
And that is the insurmountable point of contention between libertarianism and Foucault's theory of power. In Foucault's theory, Power is not a thing you have or don't have. It arises from interpersonal relationships and organizational structures. And in Foucault's theory, any relationship where one side can tell the other what to do is a power relationship. A contractual relationship where both parties are in theory free to walk away at any point is still a power relationship when that contract effectively puts one party in control of the other's life. Control is what a government has. In a private corporation, one is free to leave at any time. Where is the control? In addition, there has been a rise in Entrepreneurship since the 1970's, and especially since the 1990's. No one exercises control over you are self-employed. Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 22, 2017 13:28:04 GMT -5
And that is the insurmountable point of contention between libertarianism and Foucault's theory of power. In Foucault's theory, Power is not a thing you have or don't have. It arises from interpersonal relationships and organizational structures. And in Foucault's theory, any relationship where one side can tell the other what to do is a power relationship. A contractual relationship where both parties are in theory free to walk away at any point is still a power relationship when that contract effectively puts one party in control of the other's life. Control is what a government has. In a private corporation, one is free to leave at any time. Where is the control? In addition, there has been a rise in Entrepreneurship since the 1970's, and especially since the 1990's. No one exercises control over you are self-employed. Not according to Foucault. Consider the Factory: Its architecture is built to faciliate and encourage productive behavior, and hinder or outright prevent unproductive behavior. Relationships between people in the factory are structured alongside a hierarchy where you have the actual workers at the bottom, then a layer of foremen to watch and command the individual worker, then another layer of supervisors to watch and command those foreman-led groups, then another layer of managers to collect data, survey and command the supervisors and the groups they supervise, and so on. This setup itself creates a form of control on individuals - they can't do whatever they want because they are being watched, and commanded to do specific things, in a specific order, at a specific point in time and space. Further, the system is set up specifically so that commands from the higher echelons of the hierarchy are passed down to the lower echelons, ideally without question or critique. Now, in libertarian theory, the worker whose every movement is under the watch and command of others, day-in day-out, is just as free as the factory owner, whose movement is unconstrained and unseen. But according to Foucault's theory of power, one is at the bottom of an entire hierarchy of power relationships, while the other is at the top. As for being free to leave - sure, both the wealthy and the poor are equally free to refuse to work. For the former, the consequence is having to live off their savings. For the latter, the consequence, without a welfare state that affords people food and shelter even when they do not work, it would be death by either starvation or exposure. For libertarians, these differences in individual situations are evidently irrelevant - the entirety of libertarian political theory is blind to the issue of structural power and structural inequality. For Foucault, it is really the question that matters - how are these individuals placed in social hierarchies and how do they relate in terms of power dynamics?
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Sept 22, 2017 15:22:31 GMT -5
Control is what a government has. In a private corporation, one is free to leave at any time. Where is the control? In addition, there has been a rise in Entrepreneurship since the 1970's, and especially since the 1990's. No one exercises control over you are self-employed. Not according to Foucault. Consider the Factory: Its architecture is built to faciliate and encourage productive behavior, and hinder or outright prevent unproductive behavior. Relationships between people in the factory are structured alongside a hierarchy where you have the actual workers at the bottom, then a layer of foremen to watch and command the individual worker, then another layer of supervisors to watch and command those foreman-led groups, then another layer of managers to collect data, survey and command the supervisors and the groups they supervise, and so on. This setup itself creates a form of control on individuals - they can't do whatever they want because they are being watched, and commanded to do specific things, in a specific order, at a specific point in time and space. Further, the system is set up specifically so that commands from the higher echelons of the hierarchy are passed down to the lower echelons, ideally without question or critique. That may have been the situation over a half-century ago, but no longer. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andon_(manufacturing)Here is what happened at just one plant when this system was introduced: www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=125229157Once again, Foucault is out of date here. " As of May 2015, 15.5 million people in the U.S. were self-employed, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics—an increase of roughly 1 million since May 2014. That number is expected to keep growing at a steady clip. By 2020, a separate study estimates that more than 40% of the American workforce, or 60 million people, will be independent workers—freelancers, contractors, and temporary employees. Increasingly, contractor positions are being held by the best and brightest. Harvard Business Review recently called this phenomenon “The Rise of the Supertemp.” These days, even professionals like attorneys, CMOs, and consultants with world-class training are choosing to work independently." www.fastcompany.com/3049532/heres-why-the-freelancer-economy-is-on-the-rise"Starvation or exposure?" Give me a break! When was the last time you heard of anyone in America starving to death or dying from exposure because they quit their job? Back in the 1950's, people would keep their jobs for 20 or 30 years until retirement. That ended in the 1970's. Here is the way it is today: "Today, the average person changes jobs ten to fifteen times (with an average of 12 job changes) during his or her career. Many workers spend five years or less in every job, so they devote more time and energy transitioning from one job to another. Job searching and networking, as well as, tracking and adjusting to job market trends, have taken on enhanced importance." www.thebalance.com/how-often-do-people-change-jobs-2060467Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 23, 2017 15:34:12 GMT -5
You seem to believe that just because people are "self employed" they are under no constraints and are not part of any power relations. This runs counter to Foucault's theory of power.
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Sept 23, 2017 17:25:51 GMT -5
You seem to believe that just because people are "self employed" they are under no constraints and are not part of any power relations. This runs counter to Foucault's theory of power. I never said that self-employed people are under no constraints or that they are not part of any power relations. What I am saying is that self-employed people are under significantly reduced power relations.For example, since the end of March, 1981, I have not called anyone "boss." Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 23, 2017 19:50:27 GMT -5
You seem to believe that just because people are "self employed" they are under no constraints and are not part of any power relations. This runs counter to Foucault's theory of power. I never said that self-employed people are under no constraints or that they are not part of any power relations. What I am saying is that self-employed people are under significantly reduced power relations.For example, since the end of March, 1981, I have not called anyone "boss." Bob Don't make me say it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 23, 2017 20:10:47 GMT -5
Bob, if someone really hates the rules under which they are obligated to work and it really runs against a core value of theirs, should they stay or quit?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 23, 2017 20:48:06 GMT -5
You seem to believe that just because people are "self employed" they are under no constraints and are not part of any power relations. This runs counter to Foucault's theory of power. I never said that self-employed people are under no constraints or that they are not part of any power relations. What I am saying is that self-employed people are under significantly reduced power relations.For example, since the end of March, 1981, I have not called anyone "boss." Bob Maybe, maybe not. It isn't the self employment that matters here in Foucault's theory. What matters is whether people make you do what they want. Whether you call them "boss" or "client" or "My Lord" would not be important.
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Sept 23, 2017 22:34:17 GMT -5
I never said that self-employed people are under no constraints or that they are not part of any power relations. What I am saying is that self-employed people are under significantly reduced power relations.For example, since the end of March, 1981, I have not called anyone "boss." Bob Maybe, maybe not. It isn't the self employment that matters here in Foucault's theory. What matters is whether people make you do what they want. Whether you call them "boss" or "client" or "My Lord" would not be important. It sure as Hell does make a difference! I have enough clients so I am not dependent on any one of them. There is no power that they have over me. And there are plenty of other Astrologers, so I don't have power over them. Do they make me do what they want? Sure. By paying me my fee. Do I make them do what I want? Yes again. They have to pay me to get a reading. This isn't a "power relationship. It is a Free Trade, freely agreed to and entered into. When you go to buy groceries, do you think: "This grocer is exercising power over me and is forcing me to pay money for food!"? Does the grocer think: "He is forcing me to give him the groceries or else he won't give me the money!"? Where is the Force? Where is the "Power?" Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 24, 2017 9:49:08 GMT -5
Maybe, maybe not. It isn't the self employment that matters here in Foucault's theory. What matters is whether people make you do what they want. Whether you call them "boss" or "client" or "My Lord" would not be important. It sure as Hell does make a difference! I have enough clients so I am not dependent on any one of them. There is no power that they have over me. And there are plenty of other Astrologers, so I don't have power over them. Do they make me do what they want? Sure. By paying me my fee. Do I make them do what I want? Yes again. They have to pay me to get a reading. This isn't a "power relationship. It is a Free Trade, freely agreed to and entered into. When you go to buy groceries, do you think: "This grocer is exercising power over me and is forcing me to pay money for food!"? Does the grocer think: "He is forcing me to give him the groceries or else he won't give me the money!"? Where is the Force? Where is the "Power?" Bob But you are using a different definition of "power" than Foucault does. The Libertarian concept of power is power-as-physical-violence, or power-as-implied-physical-violence, where all power is ultimately derived from the capacity to kill with impunity. Foucault operates with a much more broad definition, where "power" is any forms of action (including speech acts) that compel people to comply in one form or another. That's why he can speak of "disciplinary power" in situations where people are never harmed or even threatened with physical harm. As I said many times, this is where Foucault's philosophy is at odds with Libertarianism, at a fundamental level.
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Sept 24, 2017 12:04:38 GMT -5
It sure as Hell does make a difference! I have enough clients so I am not dependent on any one of them. There is no power that they have over me. And there are plenty of other Astrologers, so I don't have power over them. Do they make me do what they want? Sure. By paying me my fee. Do I make them do what I want? Yes again. They have to pay me to get a reading. This isn't a "power relationship. It is a Free Trade, freely agreed to and entered into. When you go to buy groceries, do you think: "This grocer is exercising power over me and is forcing me to pay money for food!"? Does the grocer think: "He is forcing me to give him the groceries or else he won't give me the money!"? Where is the Force? Where is the "Power?" Bob But you are using a different definition of "power" than Foucault does. The Libertarian concept of power is power-as-physical-violence, or power-as-implied-physical-violence, where all power is ultimately derived from the capacity to kill with impunity. Foucault operates with a much more broad definition, where "power" is any forms of action (including speech acts) that compel people to comply in one form or another. That's why he can speak of "disciplinary power" in situations where people are never harmed or even threatened with physical harm. As I said many times, this is where Foucault's philosophy is at odds with Libertarianism, at a fundamental level. Okay. So tell me McAnswer, exactly where is this "power" in transactions of self-employed people with their customers? Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 24, 2017 13:12:01 GMT -5
It depends on what your work actually entails, does it not? There is a difference between running an ad-funded radio show with an established audience, for example, and being a freelance contractor in the employ of a larger corporate structure.
The exact nature of the power relationships will be different for each field, because they each entail different kinds of relationships.
But if we go by Foucault's theory, then there isn't really a social role that is entirely devoid of power relationships.
Also note that self employment and its economics isn't really an area Foucault wrote much about (if at all). I would have to offer my own interpretation, evidently injecting my own bias/way of thinking.
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Sept 24, 2017 18:26:48 GMT -5
It depends on what your work actually entails, does it not? There is a difference between running an ad-funded radio show with an established audience, for example, and being a freelance contractor in the employ of a larger corporate structure. The exact nature of the power relationships will be different for each field, because they each entail different kinds of relationships. But if we go by Foucault's theory, then there isn't really a social role that is entirely devoid of power relationships. I am totally unaware of any power relationships in my case. well, if clients like what I say, they come back. Is that power? But let us assume that Foucault is correct about all social roles having a power relationship. Would Foucault have recognized that some power relationships have less power than others? And did he say that having less power is a good thing? Right. If he did, he would have noticed that self employment has much less power relationships than other sorts of work relationships. In my case, I haven't noticed any power relationships at all. Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 26, 2017 12:07:32 GMT -5
It depends on what your work actually entails, does it not? There is a difference between running an ad-funded radio show with an established audience, for example, and being a freelance contractor in the employ of a larger corporate structure. The exact nature of the power relationships will be different for each field, because they each entail different kinds of relationships. But if we go by Foucault's theory, then there isn't really a social role that is entirely devoid of power relationships. I am totally unaware of any power relationships in my case. well, if clients like what I say, they come back. Is that power? But let us assume that Foucault is correct about all social roles having a power relationship. Would Foucault have recognized that some power relationships have less power than others? And did he say that having less power is a good thing? He makes no explicit value judgements as far as I know, but my own reading on his stance is ambiguous. He stresses the "creative" and "productive" aspects of Power, but from the examples he chooses to highlight modern forms of disciplinary power (prisons, psychiatry, factories) I would argue that he does present it in a rather negative light. My own thesis paper on Foucault actually dealt with the empowering aspects of his theory of power. It is possible to interpret his concept of Power in such a way to acknowledge it as a form of self control and (by extension) of self improvement, self reflection and self identification. As for having more or less power, Foucault's Power works less like legal powers that are invested into particular individuals, and more like electricity: The power lies in the connections between people, and the particular nature of those connections, not in the individuals themselves. Take school, for example: A teacher's actual ability to force their students are limited or in some cases nonexistent. But schoolchildren will still obey their commands, because the environment of being at school, the classroom, the teacher-student dynamic all exert pressure to either conform or rebel. A teacher has no power over their students in the sense that they cannot literally force anybody to comply. But in the setting of school, they can still make people do what they want. They don't "have" power, but they are part of a power relationship.
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Sept 26, 2017 13:35:27 GMT -5
I am totally unaware of any power relationships in my case. well, if clients like what I say, they come back. Is that power? But let us assume that Foucault is correct about all social roles having a power relationship. Would Foucault have recognized that some power relationships have less power than others? And did he say that having less power is a good thing? He makes no explicit value judgements as far as I know, but my own reading on his stance is ambiguous. He stresses the "creative" and "productive" aspects of Power, but from the examples he chooses to highlight modern forms of disciplinary power (prisons, psychiatry, factories) I would argue that he does present it in a rather negative light. My own thesis paper on Foucault actually dealt with the empowering aspects of his theory of power. It is possible to interpret his concept of Power in such a way to acknowledge it as a form of self control and (by extension) of self improvement, self reflection and self identification. As for having more or less power, Foucault's Power works less like legal powers that are invested into particular individuals, and more like electricity: The power lies in the connections between people, and the particular nature of those connections, not in the individuals themselves. Take school, for example: A teacher's actual ability to force their students are limited or in some cases nonexistent. But schoolchildren will still obey their commands, because the environment of being at school, the classroom, the teacher-student dynamic all exert pressure to either conform or rebel. A teacher has no power over their students in the sense that they cannot literally force anybody to comply. But in the setting of school, they can still make people do what they want. They don't "have" power, but they are part of a power relationship. Interesting. If power is like electricity, then would an oppressive relationship (such as master-slave) be something like one person generating the electricity and the other appropriating and using it? In that case, wouldn't "fair trade" be equitable with both sides getting generating some electricity as well as receiving part of the power generated by the other? In the "Free" School that I ran, there were no required classes and no homework, so there was very little to rebel against. We didn't even require students to show up every day. Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 2, 2017 12:46:35 GMT -5
As far as I interpret it, an oppressive power relationship is one where one side faces resistance from the other. This is actually when power relationships are at their least stable - the more a side has to resort to violence, the more they diminish their ability to influence the other's choices and actions.
I'm not sure the concept of a "fair trade" actually exists in Foucault's theory of power. Power relations are not transactional as such.
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Oct 2, 2017 14:32:24 GMT -5
As far as I interpret it, an oppressive power relationship is one where one side faces resistance from the other. This is actually when power relationships are at their least stable - the more a side has to resort to violence, the more they diminish their ability to influence the other's choices and actions. I'm not sure the concept of a "fair trade" actually exists in Foucault's theory of power. Power relations are not transactional as such. If Foucault says that power relations are not transactional, then a Free Market is not about power. At the very least, a Free Market would reduce that power of people over each other. Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 2, 2017 14:48:42 GMT -5
But a "free" market cannot exist without power relations.
One of Foucault's theses is that the Industrial Revolution encouraged an expansion of government power* that in turn benefitted the capitalist/entrepreneurial class.
*) Which would mostly be what we today call "soft power" - to observe and gather knowledge about its population, to educate people for the benefits of industry, to "reform" unproductive troublemakers into "productive" individuals.
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Oct 2, 2017 15:38:49 GMT -5
But a "free" market cannot exist without power relations. I would contend that these power relations are minimal compared to other economic forms. If it did that, then it is not a Free Market. In that case, it would be Crony Capitalism, a form of Fascism. In a Free Market, the government would not observe and gather knowledge about the population. Educating people for the benefit of industry would be the job of industry. "Reforming" unproductive troublemakers would be a job for private charities. The government would only be required to get violent people and those who commit fraud off of the street in order to keep the peace. Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 4, 2017 6:37:05 GMT -5
But a "free" market cannot exist without power relations. I would contend that these power relations are minimal compared to other economic forms. But that's based on an understanding of power that is fundamentally different from Foucault's. Remember, power isn't inherently evil or destructive. If I hire a hundred people to beat people up and hail me dictator, then that are power relations. But if I hire the same hundred people to build me a rocket that can fly to Mars, those are also power relations. The nature of the effect does not diminish the strength or intensity of the power relations that produced that effect. The electricity analogy helps here again: Regardless of whether you power a hospital or an electrical chair, you're using the same kind of electrical power to do it. I think this is actually a bit of an argumentative weakness on Foucault's part in his works on power like Discipline and Punish - he clearly wants his readers to feel like Power is bad and oppressive, but his own theory of power doesn't actually lead us to that conclusion. I think this is/was a major point of contention between Foucault and Habermas actually: In Foucault's point of view, the Panopticon, a perfect prison where everyone sees everyone else and therefore prevents bad things simply by watching other people, is a dystopian hellscape. But if we take Habermas' side (who argues for open-minded and transparent discourse free of political power), the Panopticon might be how we would imagine a perfect society for the internet age: A society where nobody can hide their evil habits, their racism, their Neonazi sympathies, where all government abuse and corporate wrongdoings are immediately spotted. Almost a Libertarian utopia. Sounds like a True Scotsman fallacy to me. But regardless, as I said, Foucault doesn't make a difference. Remember, it's all just different forms of Power to him.
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Oct 4, 2017 14:17:46 GMT -5
I would contend that these power relations are minimal compared to other economic forms. But that's based on an understanding of power that is fundamentally different from Foucault's. Remember, power isn't inherently evil or destructive. If I hire a hundred people to beat people up and hail me dictator, then that are power relations. But if I hire the same hundred people to build me a rocket that can fly to Mars, those are also power relations. The nature of the effect does not diminish the strength or intensity of the power relations that produced that effect. The electricity analogy helps here again: Regardless of whether you power a hospital or an electrical chair, you're using the same kind of electrical power to do it. I think this is actually a bit of an argumentative weakness on Foucault's part in his works on power like Discipline and Punish - he clearly wants his readers to feel like Power is bad and oppressive, but his own theory of power doesn't actually lead us to that conclusion. That's interesting. Yes, it would be a weakness on Foucault's part to assume that all power must be oppressive. And even if it were the case that all power is oppressive, all power would not have the same magnitude. It would make sense in that case to choose the system that is least oppressive. The way he describes it, it certainly would be. That could also be a perfect tyranny. A dictator would have no trouble spotting opposition. And who, exactly, would be responsible for defining which habits and thoughts are evil? In a Libertarian Utopia, there would still be a right to privacy. Regarding punishment for wrongdoers, a particularly cruel form would be to make them read Habermas' writings every day. Does Habermas mean transparent discourse for everyone? Or would he exclude Libertarians, Conservatives, and all others who disagree with him? I could never figure that out. Not in this case. There actually is a difference between a Free Market and Crony Capitalism. In a Free Market, there is little if any interaction between government and private companies. For one thing, there would be no government bailouts of failing companies, no subsidies, and no handouts. Government would not be involved in education at all, let alone for the benefit of industry. And government would not spy on people and collect information about them. These things are part of the definition of Libertarian, so there is no "True Scotsman Fallacy" here. I wonder why he never distinguished between cases of more power and less power. Bob
|
|