The term "social murder" has a long pedigree, and is really the term of art for this kind of concealed/indirect "violence". Mark Twain's quote about the two Reigns of Terror also applies, and is perhaps a little older.
Right, and if you go from the actual definition of social murder, basically everybody in the G8 is a murderer, unless you artificially confine the analysis to your own county.
I'm sure the concept has a lot of utility philosophically, but when you try to distill it down to "PE firm owners are murderers" you wind up in pretty crazy places unless you supply a lot of motivated reasoning and special pleading.
There's infinite levels of badness and eventually it does reach a point, be it in risk, probability, magnitude, or impact, in which it is super bad, and we may consider it violence, or murder, or crimes against humanity, or what have you.
Everything is not everything else. Scale not only matters, it's almost the only thing that matters.
Nobody can really because it's complicated. Or, at least, nobody can agree, which is why we have the terms. However, I think the terms have some validity, because the broader concept does.
I mean, is Hitler a murderer? Is your run of the mill burglary gone wrong worse than the Holocaust? Obviously not. So there has to be some kind of understanding of organized death.
