Thus, we have agreed as a socieity to accept with the new technology the labor short term labor displacement that technology may cause. From a conflict perspective, society is providing new jobs and career paths for those with sufficient advantage to acquire the new skills, but those who had no access to such training are finding their jobs destroyed by the shift in technology, with little attention given to equipping them for new work or providing them with jobs they can do at wages they can live at. From this perspective there is no agreement, no consensus. Those with currently more saleable skills are taking work at the expense of those with now-outdated skills. Those losing the work did not agree, and this is very much like a class issue, because it is based on access to new training.
Example is person steals food to feed family, it is semi-acceptable because the family needs to eat.
Okay, I read the defenition in the back of Arrigo and it says that everything can be identified or controlled with scientific exactness or precision. Okay, I read the defenition in the back of Arrigo and it says that everything can be identified or controlled with scientific exactness or precision. We went over this more in the crim class than law class. By borrowing from biology they were considered positivists. This question we really haven't gone over in the law class.