If that construction is useful, in order for neo-liberals to be viewed as anything other than useless distractions they really need to step up and promote some solutions to the problems of market power.
In this case, market power is the ability of men to use physical force on women, but in more explicitly economic areas of neo-liberal theory we get a giant donut from folks like Cowan on the issue of how to churn out and destroy the ever-growing, ever-less-efficient players who end up dominating most markets and pulling massive rents out of the economy.
Iâd love to drop out of the corporate world but did I mention that I have a son in college?
Seriously though, I know I am not alone in wishing that those of us who have chosen professional careers that intersect with the business-side of our society would only be allowed to actually do the things we like to do and are actually good at doing (and maybe get a little recognition for our efforts along the way) instead of having to navigate office politics, kiss the bossâ ass, or subjugate our moral compass to the holy quarterly statement.
Maybe Iâm a dreamerâŚbut Iâm not the only one.
That itâs a product of a diseased and troubled mind?
That itâs an act perpetrated on behalf of the patriarchy?
That itâs taboo?
Actually, I donât much care. I suppose the best approach would be the one that most effectively reduced the frequency of the crime without breaching the ethical norms of our societyâcastrating rapists might be most effective, but itâs barbaric.
The fallacy in this argument is that rape is not about sex- itâs about power and domination. Sex is just the context for the assault.
There is no market here- even a convoluted one. It is repugnant to even attempt to frame an economic comparison to a fundamentally immoral act. The fact that a neoliberal would even try shows no clearer indication of a bankrupt ideology.
Right here you lost me. No, most of us donât have to agree. Rape is wrong. Period. Forcing, coercing people into sexual acts is wrong. Its not some namby-pamby âwe all kinda sorta agree that rape is badâ 'cuz it bypasses âa marketâ. Why donât we make a rape market? Then it wonât bypass markets. People are forced into economic transactions all the time that they would prefer not be a party to, why should rape be any different? See, this is where the little cut and paste world neoliberal economics attempts to assemble falls apart. The very idea that people arenât coerced into âmarket transactionsâ is a ridiculous pretense that only an economist, or an economist apologist, could blindly assert.
And no, the cost is irrelevant to the rapist. Just like capital punishment doesnât deter murder. Its just not that simple that we can assume a high enough cost can be imposed on the criminal so they wonât commit the crime. Thatâs utter hogwash.
And I take serious issue with economics as a pursuit (esp. neoclassical) in part because it bites off way more than it can chew. You canât isolate the behavior of individuals and groups with regard to how they manage scarce resources (which btw, has nothing to do with rape, which isnât a resource at all, but I digress) without discussing a huge array of cultural and social issues that economics conveniently likes to sweep under the rug. Its the ultimate reductionist anthropology, that likes to pretend its a science, and that helps teach us absolutely nothing about human behavior. Even the idea that modern economics really has anything to do with scarce resources when in fact, most resources are not scarce except for the artificial way they are made scarce by powerful forces, is flawed and doesnât inform us. But when I learned that neoclassical economics (the strict economic basis for neoliberal ideology) doesnât even model for such things as debt, and the financial system, but it can apparently discuss rape as an economic matter, that I lost all hope that anything can be salvaged from that perverse and disturbing area of âstudyâ.
I wouldnât claim that rape is a taboo. In fact I would argue that attempting to understand rape as a taboo is counterproductive in at least two ways. i) Attempting to understand rape as a taboo diminishes the nature of taboo in relation to the processes of rite and custom, and ii) obfuscates the basic biology and psychology of the act of rape.
Please try to go back and re-read what âtabooâ refers to in religious studies and correlate areas of inquiry (eg cultural anthropology) before attempting to define rape as such.
Especially at this point in time, and in post-industrial cultures. One may argue that taboo-functions seem to occur around facets of rape within culture (EG rape fanntasy, or any artistic celebration of rape in a creative narrative), but thatâs as close as it gets.
This is where morality imposes the burden of grappling with ethics and justice onto society.
The concept of right and wrong Is innate and self evident to the human condition - or shoud be as long as itâs not being suppressed by some bullshit philosophical pretext. Itâs what makes us unique compared to other animal species. Itâs our privilege and our curse.
Morality does not require a textbook to grasp its importance or understand its relevance and justice cannot be metted out by following some formula in a spreadsheet It can be difficult and messy and even imperfect but society en masse determines appropriate punishment- not economic theory. Loss of liberty is currently our societyâs response to rapists although harsher penalties are reserved for more serious offenses.
What you donât see is a schedule of fines for rape as if the only motivating or deterring factor involved is purely economic gains or loses.
Nobody ever says to themselves, âWell, Iâve saved up $10000 bucks for the fine. I guess Iâll go find somebody to rape now.â
To put it more bluntly; if you were in such a position to decide, how much would you charge for someone to rape your wife or daughter? What level of economic restitution would be sufficient for you to excuse the act?
Itâs easy to put a theory down on paper and attempt to mold all kinds of seemingly non-related situations into a grand unifying theory of economic behavior but itâs much harder to defend them when they impact actual lives.
I was going to argue that youâre under pricing rape, given that the average prison sentence is 65 months or so (various sources), but very low conviction rates limit the perceived cost of any one criminal act. (from the perspective of the perpetrator, who is, of course, a sociopath)
Neoliberalism is a less libertarian off shoot of classical liberalism. Rather than a strong state ameliorating the socially destructive aspects of a laissez-faire economy, as in social liberalism, neoliberalism apparently requires a strong state to defend the market economy.
Can you put âbarbaricâ into economic terms? Or can you just admit that not everything can be shoehorned into an economic analysis?
When people commit crimes they usually count on not getting caught, or at least donât consider the possibility of getting caught. Also, when it comes to crimes itâs actually possible not to get caught unlike market transactions where there is no possibility of not paying for what youâre buying.
Why is killing wrong? You think itâs because of the dollar value of human life?
Youâre the one trying to analyze rape in terms of economics. Presumably you could attach a dollar value for time spent in jail and use that dollar value interchangeably with the time spent in jail (that seems to be an implicit premise of your arguments here). The reason it would be that low is because rape convictions are so rare that you need to discount the cost of getting convicted by about 90% (because only about 10% of perpetrators actually âpay the priceâ for raping).
