When reality yields unacceptable amounts of harm (whatever that is), that’s just the way it is…just accept it, the Objectivist says after TBTF banks are not allowed to fail because of unacceptable amounts of harm.
Practitioners of the art and science of politics and economics generally agree that supply and demand is the “invisible hand” whether we like it or not. The objective reality (the attributive value) of a supply-demand existence is a math equation.
In the equation “x+x=4” we know that “4” is the yield. What we want to know is what we can attribute to the yield (the attribution yield). Discovering the attributive values are a function of objective reality, but not being known in the particular case, the possibilities are infinite–zero–unknown.
The probability of zero is nothing until the value is addjected–attributive. (Remember that, if it is possible, the probability of something, over time, is 100%.) Capitalists are sure to game the infinite possibilities that attribute the values and “win the argument” whether it is “objective reality” or not. Reality, then, reduces to being whatever “the winners” say it is (i.e., a phenomenology). With intendency, life can imitate art, but at what risk (what cost)?
(At the cost of being marginally reduced to zero in your particular case, maybe, which is the doctrine of fully assumed risk.)
Policymaking naturally reduces to a risk assessment, which makes attributions yielding TO what the truth is (speaking truth to power).
According to Objectivists, like Rand Paul and Paul Ryan, for example, welfare yields poverty. Of course, we do not reasonably eliminate welfare to test the hypothesis because of the harm it will do. The argument, then, reduces to determining (on command, with the force and legitimacy of public authority–with intendency) an acceptable amount of harm. Since acting with intention fully values the risk with empirical results (measurable value that is not arbitrary), the method called “capitalism” runs the risk of being verifiably harmful with intent.
Intention exists a prosecutable, criminal attribution that the limited liability of the corporate resists but fails by producing “things” (objective reality) at near-zero marginal cost.
Time exists measure and resists nothing.
The natural result is the gamma-risk proportion. Capitalists naturally create a crisis proportion so big that we have no choice but to yield to the methods that cause it. The result is an organized pathology (a risk tautology) that supports a criminal psychopathy described by Objectivists as normal and thus naturally existing with limited liability despite whatever harm it causes.
Keep in mind that doing harm, and getting away with it, is THE measure of power. Hobbes, for example, described this tendency as being hopelessly self-destructive–human nature. He told the king that his power is determined on demand but the king, nevertheless, can’t resist the symbols of power that measure the attributes (the natural identity) of his existence.
Hobbes’ philosophy of the risk represents an emergent property with attributes we deal with today on a daily basis, creating supply to meet demand. Having attained the empirical value of near-zero marginal cost, the “demand” attribution is now the value to which power must yield but we still must determine what the objective is, and the reality of that is a power struggle that reduces to the legitimacy (the argument) of means to ends.
Means-to-ends legitimacy is a philosophical pursuit, and like Aristotle said, it is about knowing “the good life” (the pursuit of happiness, which is likely to yield FROM your methods).
How do we know when we have the good life?
What is the measure–the value–of attainment?
Eliminating nuisance, maybe?
What is the measure, existing over time, to occupy your particular space and mine with common divisibility?
Zero marginal cost?
Is it really so unreasonable to assume that, with so much supply added to meet demand, yielding so much surplus value at near-zero marginal cost to the point of default, a person is not unhappy unless there is someone out there that wants to make it a symbol of their status, like capitalists are apt to do.
Does zero marginal cost measure the pursuit of happiness or a nuisance value to be controlled for (legitimately determined) on demand?