Attributive-Risk Identity

The capacity to make demands is an attributive-risk identity. It is a function of legitimate authority, which reduces to some form of coercion described as the public good.

In the case of conservatives, legitimacy is described as an “objective identity” that comes with the liberty, the natural right, to pursue happiness. Whether or not that pursuit makes other people unhappy is not a problem to be solved by social contract because we all have the same, commonly divisible right to pursue happiness. If you are not happy with the results, it’s your own fault. Blaming someone else is to misattribute the value (the liberty) of success and erroneously mandate (force) the natural identity (the need) for a third-party application of the risk to be successful on demand.

According to conservatives, the liberty to force the need for sharing success is unnatural–illogical. (Either you are successful or you’re not, right? If you are not, then wise up! Conform to what it means to be successful. Incorporate yourself. Become a member of the organized psychopathy. Know what it’s really like to exist on demand and get whatever you ask for. Be happy!) “We” can only pretend to the liberty of an unnatural existence. Improper (unconforming) redistribution of property (taking from the makers) can only exist (it only “just happens”) utilizing the coercive power of government (sovereign) authority.

A social contract implies a second and third party. That means attributing the value of success to another party (like the “makers”–the job creators) but not failure. When non-elites fail, they only have themselves to blame. (This is what “just happens” when, for example, TBTF entities get bailed out of the default condition but everyone else is allowed to fail. The reward is privatized while the risk is given the non-elite, collective identity–the attributive value–of being “socialized.”) Claiming to be victims is a fraud, and demanding government punish “winners” (the “makers”–people who add supply), like the king did, is counter-Revolutionary (reactionary). Like Reagan said, “government is the problem, not the solution.

Job creators create the opportunity for success, capitalists tell us. To what we can then attribute failure is the third party–government (sovereign power), which is us, using the right to self-determine, without a social contract with “them.”

The difference between us and them is the retributive value. To prevent the risk, there must be a proper attribution of the value.

Being bonded to authority, for the capitalist, by default, both the next best thing in the world, and the worst, is managing the risk of default.

What the default condition actually is, you see, is not exactly clear. So, we tend to organize it, pretending to an on-demand existence, speculating on the probable risk, priced into the futures to deliver the assets that definitely determine it now; but that existence is, you see, “de-finite” (undefined). It may not always exist, probably, if it is not managed by default in the dimension of being in-definite (having uncertain, exact value) in futures markets with the price to be discovered on demand at the point (the time) of delivery.

Timing is the method that delivers the yield and attributes the value, in late order, with the exculpatory identity of being “discovered.”

When the capitalist organizes the risk to confiscate your property by default (and remember, like Dodd-Frank says, “it will happen again”–it’s just a matter of time), the conditioning (the psychopathy) is not intended. It is unknown (a missing value to be solved for) until discovered (priced on demand).

By default, psychopathic tendencies are completely innocent (juvenile) until proven guilty of knowing and willing detriment in the pursuit of happiness. Intent is a process of discovery, it’s no coincidence, after dirty deeds are done, attributing the risk identity, arbitrating the price to be paid, in a court of law.

“Victims”–you may have noticed–rarely if ever recover from their losses. The value does not just (“poof”) disappear, it is consolidated, “made” indivisible by default.

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 )

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s