Objective Inequality

Compulsively obsessing over Ted Cruz is a fallacy of the ad hominem variety. Focusing on the cult of personality, we crowd out evaluating policies and programs in a meaningful way.

Causal attributions are trivialized.

According to pop media, for example, anchoring probable, policy outcomes far right is not a strategy. It’s about a “cruzading,” Ivy League narcissist angling for the White House.

(Pop-media analysts are, and aspire to be, high-income celebrities. Measurable status is attained by focusing on the attributes of celebrity. It’s an art form that represents the American dream, “making it” by objectively reporting the pros and cons, and the behavioral, demographic attributes, of its likely deprivation.)

What’s important is that Republicans, including Ted Cruz, intend to advance a highly detrimental policy agenda. They share the same identity.

Republican strategy intends to anchor-in a policy program that approximates 19th and early 20th Century capitalism. Republicans know the accumulation (the detriment) cannot go on forever. A distribution always “intends” to occur. (War, for example, is a form of distribution. To resist the tendency for warfare, we have developed other means, like the welfare state and monetizing the debt, to deconsolidate the risk with intendency.) To prevent it, a machine-language software program is installed. Specifically, the language intends to advance the notion that income inequality is by natural design, or as Ayn Rand put it, “objective reality.”

(Much of “the capital” classical economists refer to was accumulated in the 18th and 19th Centuries, arbitraging the risk of war. The old adage, “buy when there is blood in the streets” is not only wisdom to protect wealth against natural tendencies but points to causal attributions that “intend” as well. The trick–the political gaming strategy–is to protect the intendency from its natural, imperative liability.

Take a look at Alan Greenspan’s latest book. It essentially re-presents the natural philosophy of Ayn Rand.

The risks, he says, of human nature–natural intendencies, behaviors we describe as self-interest–are the same as they were back in the 18th and 19th Centuries. Since it does not change, the result can only be described as objective reality; not, for example, the adjective reality that I suggest in which existence, instead of being naturally empty and nihilistic, is creatively self-determined and fully culpable on demand.)

There is a host of conservative philosophy to support Objectivist language. What Republicans focus on is the intendency for democratic principles to be a way to rob them. Stealing with intendency is a crime. To conserve the “virtue” of the state (the natural strength, “the objective identity” that Randians, like Greenspan, refer to) it is necessary to program the machine to maintain “objective” inequality, “the way nature intended it,” much like we are doing now with safe seats in the House to control the purse.

Advertisements

About griffithlighton

musician-composer, artist, writer, philosopher and political economist (M.A.)
This entry was posted in Political-Economy and Philosophy and tagged , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.