(Resisting the Resistance)
Pathologically, resistance to the resistance kills the host. (Psychopathologically, resistance to the resistance kills the contract.)
Philosophes aptly advised absolute monarchs: the liability is not absolutely limited. (It’s as true now as it was then.) The king becomes the object of resistance, not the risk the sovereign is contractually obliged to resist. (The risk naturally yields to a minimum standard of existence, on demand, by default.) What we are naturally yields to the status quo, and like the president says, it’s the hardest thing to resist.
Louis XIV was not able to get French peasants to plant root crops, which were successfully resisting famine across Europe, more adapted to the climate at the time. If you are king of France, you can’t sanction labor at subsistence, so Louis didn’t because it kills the host (“The People” that labor over you). Yielding to the minimum standard of existence, fate was reduced to survival of the fittest.
With a rising standard of living, however, capitalists can sanction labor with a falling Minimum Standard of Existence, like we have now, referred to as a “long-tail recovery.”
Capitalism organizes the externalities to yield what we want to be–risk free.
“The capital” is organized (accumulated–added) to naturally resist what we don’t want to be, yielding to minimum standards on command, like a minimum wage, mandated to support a legitimate (proper) existence (on demand) by default.
Notice, for example, the Affordable Care Act is mandated to exist on demand, but a mandate is a command attribute. Immediately there is a false attribution that accumulates errors (risk!) on demand. We then manage the risk on command to validate its false on-demand attribution.
It’s important to understand that the ACA’s on-demand attribution is false because there is insufficient income. Income is not equal enough to demand the price up or down, or ensure quality beyond the so-called “natural monopoly” of the AMA. The attribution error is not because people need health care but because they don’t have the income necessary to mechanically demand it with immediate accountability like in a free market.
Not having big government requires deconsolidation of the risk, not its annihilation.
There is not enough commonly divisible income to demand the ACA. Nevertheless, prices get support on command, providing for a minimum standard of existence. (ACA advocates attribute a slower rate of health-care inflation to the ACA, but again, let’s account for the “long-tail recovery,” which is the result of a Republican, economic program. Deflation accounts for the slower rate and the ACA mandate supports what pricing power the health-care sector maintains. Notice that deflation is a negative resistance–resisting the resistance, killing the host. Disinflation has the utility of a positive resistance–supporting the resistance, providing for the general welfare. Supporting the resistance raises the minimum standard–everybody wins, which conservatives say is quite unnatural if not unstable because it raises expectations, fading hope into the practical value, the critique, of confirmed conformity, raising the standard of what we know to be the status quo. “The hardest thing to do in politics” is the easiest thing to do economically, and so, if not, why not!) The minimum standard requirement (the mandate) supports a growing servant class (a service economy) that would otherwise be worse than slavery by default, which would surely demand the utility of “the resistance.”