Containment of natural risk sounds unnatural doesn’t it. If the probable risk is .5 and is managed to appear as .2, over time the measure of .3 (the difference–the value to be arbitraged by argument) will show its existence (the risk is fully assumed in priority). The question (since the value cannot be zeroed at .2 indefinitely) is, when and how?
Normally we refer to the value of “.3” (the missing value to be discovered) as “the risk” but, actually, it is the probability of its occurrence, which is never zero. Perhaps it is more accurate to say that the risk is realized (rather than discovered) in the future because, as you may have inferred, how it occurs determines when, which essentially explains why.
Discovering “why” realizes (reduces to) the intent of “how” and “when.” Since culpability is the risk to be avoided, prosecution of intent reduces to the “how and when” (the means) leaving the all-important “why” (the ends) unchallenged. When we hear Randians say they do not question anyone’s motives (because it is not objective) it is to avoid establishing intent, not to be objective, exactly.
When risk is avoided now (at present) we tend to say it has been reduced, but it is always there. Its measure always exists and, over time, expresses as a persistent, quantum value.
Saying risk has been reduced when it really hasn’t is why there is an argument over when and how it occurs. We tend, then, to a causal reduction: attributing the values, correlating known variables over time to predict the probable futures. Keep in mind that predicting the outcome does not mean you have discovered objective reality. Notice, for example, that the best arbitageurs are not the same people every year–it’s not normal–and when they are it is later discovered that they cheated.
For 99% of us, figuring the probability by instinct (or what Hobbes described as reasonable sensibility), the question is “how” Wall Street always wins no matter what. Is it because “they” intend to or because (like Alexander Hamilton argued) it is objective reality.
Hamilton argued, like Randians, that the elite naturally rule. Ayn Rand called this “natural identity” and Objectivists seriously consider it to be an “objective reality.” If violated we risk serious consequences, which includes mainly the wrath of “them” inflicted on “us.” When we don’t pay proper tribute to “the makers” with a regressive tax burden, for example, like Hamilton said we should, then we naturally suffer the “affliction” of sub-optimal investment. The money we need to demand the supply does not trickle down, like Hamilton said it would, but it never does anyway because it is not intended to, conserving the difference between us and them–natural identity–in a crisis, risk proportion.
The consequences–the difference between “us and them”–is the argument to be arbitraged.
The most serious consequence–the
“big risk” to be avoided–is the elite being subjected to the demands of the non-elite, which Hobbes, a conservative philosopher, said is only natural.
Adam Smith also recognized the natural philosophy, the freedom, of an on-demand existence. Although considered by both the left and the right as conservative, his practical philosophy of risk management was really quite liberal.
Fully applied today, Adam Smith’s philosophy would be considered downright radical. Self-determination by means of maintaining a free-market system is a work of art that imitates life. It is what a conservative like Hobbes was looking for, consistently yielding to the stability–the accumulative effect–of a riskless return on demand that Marxist-Leninism only dreams of on command.
Consolidated capital and its counter-identity, typically described as socialism or communism, are both a consolidation of power. A real antithesis of risk identity would be deconsolidation of power and self-determination. American Revolutionaries like Hamilton praised the attainment of deconsolidation and then set to containing the probable risk-identity–the emergent property that counters a crisis proportion–by consolidating the financial means to which it naturally obtains.
Consolidation, as we clearly see now, destroys demand and the emergent property of its identity. Instead of stability, it is always yielding to a crisis proportion. Consolidating power to change the objective of the identity is not sufficient because, as we have seen, oligarchs “emerge” to own the property of common divisibility.
Consolidation of power in the Marxist-Leninist form exists on demand as a social contract. Like Voltaire said, however, the ruling class always demonstrates the need for the rule of law by breaking them all.
When power is consolidated, political or economic, “better days” exist on borrowed time, always receding just below the horizon. Tomorrow is a new day, always existing in the futures, but never now.