(POLICY) an extreme form of capitalism created in the immediate aftermath of a disaster. In some cases, as in Chile (1973), the disaster is a coup d'etat with the express purpose of imposing disaster capitalism. In other cases, such as the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami, it is a genuine natural disaster that literally kills.
After some disasters, the authorities in some countries may well respond by imposing "reforms" that would have been impossible before. These include: (1) privatization of public property, making it unavailable to the indigenous people; (2) arbitrary elimination of laws ("deregulation"); and (3) slashing democratically chosen programs that help ordinary citizens ("austerity programs").
The concept was popularized in Naomi Klein's excellent 2007 book, *The Shock Doctrine*.
After some disasters, the authorities in some countries may well respond by imposing "reforms" that would have been impossible before. These include: (1) privatization of public property, making it unavailable to the indigenous people; (2) arbitrary elimination of laws ("deregulation"); and (3) slashing democratically chosen programs that help ordinary citizens ("austerity programs").
The concept was popularized in Naomi Klein's excellent 2007 book, *The Shock Doctrine*.
"Disaster capitalism" is neoliberalism imposed undemocratically. It exploits natural disasters, civil wars, foreign invasions, coups d'etat, terrorism, or explicit deception. It always seeks to make its changes irreversible.
Naomi Klein mostly blames the International Monetary Fund, but there are other culprits as well.
Naomi Klein mostly blames the International Monetary Fund, but there are other culprits as well.
by Abu Yahya July 10, 2010
anything of value that a society has, whether it produced the thing or not, and whether the thing is traded commercially or not.
For example the USA has natural gas (which it did not produce), air (which it did not produce), computers (which it did produce) and personal freedom (which it did produce). Air and personal freedom are not tradeable goods; it's not possible to establish ownership rights for air or freedom.
Philosophers believe that the proper distribution of social goods is still an open question, even if the distribution of economic goods (like computers) is not.
For example the USA has natural gas (which it did not produce), air (which it did not produce), computers (which it did produce) and personal freedom (which it did produce). Air and personal freedom are not tradeable goods; it's not possible to establish ownership rights for air or freedom.
Philosophers believe that the proper distribution of social goods is still an open question, even if the distribution of economic goods (like computers) is not.
An inequality in the basic structure must always be justified to those in the disadvantaged position. This holds whatever the primary social good and especially for liberty.
John Rawls, *A Theory of Justice*, p.201
John Rawls, *A Theory of Justice*, p.201
by Abu Yahya February 14, 2009
Latin, "where is the benefit?" A type of logical fallacy in which one claims one didn't do something bad because it was not in one's interests to do so. An example would be, "Why would I steal from the cash register? It's going to hurt the business if I do, and then I might lose my job."
The argument is usually used on behalf of someone else: for example, Ludo Martens (1995) argues that Stalin could not possibly have massacred millions of Russians because he needed them to fight WW2; Fogel & Engermann claimed* that American slavery was not very bad because it was in the best interests of slaveowners to have content slaves.
The argument is a fallacy because it assumes that all relevant motives of the actor are well-established, and lead away from the act. It does not account for motives like personal hatred, shame, fear, spite, ideology, and so on.
________________________
* In *Time on the Cross* (1971); the book was conclusively debunked by David & Stampp, *Reckoning with Slavery* (1976).
The argument is usually used on behalf of someone else: for example, Ludo Martens (1995) argues that Stalin could not possibly have massacred millions of Russians because he needed them to fight WW2; Fogel & Engermann claimed* that American slavery was not very bad because it was in the best interests of slaveowners to have content slaves.
The argument is a fallacy because it assumes that all relevant motives of the actor are well-established, and lead away from the act. It does not account for motives like personal hatred, shame, fear, spite, ideology, and so on.
________________________
* In *Time on the Cross* (1971); the book was conclusively debunked by David & Stampp, *Reckoning with Slavery* (1976).
One frequently encounters *quis est beneficium?* arguments among Holocaust deniers of all stripes. Among such worthies it is claimed that Hitler/Stalin/Enver Pasha could not possibly have wanted to massacre all those millions because it was a nuisance to try.
by Abu Yahya February 15, 2009