Self-Determination of the Problem

Philosophers often refer to the human condition as having “perennial” problems. It seems like the math can’t be solved without recreating the problem, which then has the appearance of a conserved, constant value (an objective reality) that cannot be avoided (it just happens) like a natural law.

(Remember that the identity of the neo conservative–the Objectivist–is a “natural law” identity. They rule by natural right, which is a confirmed, empirically valued, on-demand existence that has been earned. Being accounted for in priority, having earned the right, “naturally endowed,” limits the liability, described as “objective reality.”

No matter what happens, when it “just happens,” naturally endowed, the liability, empirically valued in priority, is naturally zero. No matter how hard we try we can’t change–add to–the absolute value of natural law. The sum of the squares is naturally “conservative.”)

Recurrence of “the problem” exists because reality is additive, not a zero-sum. Reality is a creative presence greater than the sum of its parts, which is the synergy capitalism says it yields to, but only pretends–thus the missing value and the “problem” to be solved.

Capitalism is not all pretense, however. A con artist knows that he cannot lie all the time or nobody will believe him, or at least know when to believe him. Besides, the taker doesn’t want to kill the host.

The wealth of nations has to trickle-down and lift everybody’s boat at least a little. (It can always be taken back, and even take a little more, over time.) If the objective is to create a surplus servant class to serve up all the goods produced by landless peasants in emerging markets and robots that don’t unionize, enough of them have to be healthy enough to be of service, and the rest healthy enough to threaten employees with replacement on demand. This hedonic calculus (classically referred to as “subsistence”) is a math problem. It identifies integral values that derive (determine) the outcome.

Recurrence of a subsistence (zero-sum) identity is a structural identity. Currently, for example, we are bureaucratically structured to yield distributive value through stable, routine tasks. Like Mosca says, added wealth requires an added, elite substructure to manage it, which (naturally) shares (determines) elite identity (and the problem to be solved).

(Articles on “the bureaucratic model” by griffithlighton can be found on the World Wide Web.)

Keep in mind that Gaetano Mosca, like Thomas Hobbes, was advocating for the value of maintaining elite identity.

Mosca noticed that organizations are built to conserve elite power, and when one comes crashing down on demand, another one reappears with the same identity. It appears that, as Ayn Rand explained, aristocratic identity is an integral value. If we are to resolve our differences, and solve the problem, it is necessary (by no accident) to properly identify integral and derivative values.

Of course, Mosca begs the question.

What’s to prevent the identity from being changed (by no accident) to manage the risk?

Fascists say that the only way to keep the identity from changing, and keep the sum square, is by force. Hobbes, however, said the sum squares on demand. Not recognizing that natural identity (self-determined like a math problem) is the perennial risk to be avoided.