When Hobbes says we naturally tend to an aristocratic identity (the social contract), he is not saying that elite identity is naturally separate from the great horde of non-elite existence. Quite the contrary. He is saying the value is integral–it is a zero-sum–and the people exist to resist an unnatural identity, resolving the cognitive dissonance of fundamental attribution error.
The right to revolt, giving real meaning to the story being told (supplying the demand rather than taking it), is only natural. Verifiably integral, with little or no discrepancy, the sum is effectively zero. With no risk to be arbitraged in late order, being supplied on demand, in zero-sum, there is “objective reality.”
Supply-siders and the asset class tend to have an objective concept of reality. Being is really nothing, it is zero, until it is supplied with meaningful existence–identity. Ayn Rand, for example, reasons that once we realize that reality is objectively ontological, like the scientist, then we come to know (we discover) our “objective, natural identity.”
People that supply the existence are “the makers” and, naturally, by occupation, they resist “the takers” who really have no identity at all if it is not made for them. Thus, we have the natural advantage of “making markets” wholesale and the concept of being “the job creators,” which implies the power, naturally endowed, to rule by occupation (“natural identity”). People, naturally, have the right to define their own existence, and “We” naturally occupy space over time to divisibly confirm it when we earn it.
While it may not be possible to create something from nothing it is possible to create an identity that derives from creating the supply that meets the demands of a “corporate” existence.
Being the Objectivist by occupation means what, exactly?
When jobs are lost due to Wall Street practices and, like we have now, the labor market is deflated against the rising value of asset classes (plentifully supplied and delivered on demand to support the value of its “natural identity”), it is a secular (natural) correction. It is neither good or evil. Technically, it just is what it is (it exists ontologically) without regard to whether it is right or wrong. As soon as we try and measure how right or wrong, good or bad, the outcome is, we “intend” (yield) to warfare–class warfare, for example, which always yields to command authority and the loss of freedom “We” enjoy, supplied in an on-demand dimension.
Wall Street executioners don’t intend to do harm, Objectivists tell us. It seems that way because dealing with detriment is their job, avoiding the given risks of an ontological existence by means of execution. Managing risk does not mean causing it, but it does mean structuring it, arbitraged by argument (and algorithmically pre-tended) to yield benefit from probable detriment in due time. Sure, it’s highly rewarding work, occupied by the best and the brightest. If it weren’t, being tested under stress, who would do it, and we would all be worse off, dismally dealing with the detriment, random and stochastic.
Economics is referred to as “the dismal science” because when we measure its value exactly we discover a zero sum (the risk of loss is fully assumed in priority).
How dismal is it really…just exactly?
If you make widgets for income (a maker and not a taker) and, unlike the asset class you aspire to, you depend on it, then you’ve been elected on demand! It’s up to you to be sure the asset class does not hoard the demand for your supply.
If the objective is to hoard demand to yield plentiful supply, then it’s time to addject reality and reject the objective.
It’s time to put your assets under new management–and that would be you!
Don’t let asset class occupy your space, take your time, and blame it on big government.
Small government (self-governance) happens on demand.
It’s a zero-sum, don’t you think?