Material choice-extent lacks the diminishing-returns logic that equality in power has

Evidence

The difference between the situation here and the situation with intensity is interesting. The extent of people’s undominated choices may be a function, not just of their own holdings, but also of the holdings of others: this is because of the interactive effect of holdings on demand and price, and thereby on the costs of choice. That makes for a parallel with the claim that the intensity of people’s non-domination is a function, not just of their own powers, but of the powers of others. But the parallel breaks down in a further crucial respect. For whereas a person’s power-ratio is subject to diminishing marginal productivity in its effect on their intensity of non-domination, nothing similar holds as between a person’s holdings-ratio and their extent of undominated choice. — Philip Pettit, Republicanism, 562

Categorization

• DEFINE: Distinguishes ‘intensity’ of non-domination (driven by power-ratio, diminishing returns) from ‘extent’ of undominated choice (driven by holdings, no such parallel) — the crux dividing structural from material egalitarianism.
• XREF: connects to: Range of choice matters less than what can be chosen under repressive totality — Herbert Marcuse, One-Dimensional Man: Studies in the…, 121

Broader Connections

• Range of choice matters less than what can be chosen under repressive totality #qualifies (0.82) — Herbert Marcuse, One-Dimensional Man, 121