Republicans say the poor need to be more austere. Paul Ryan says, for example, the worst thing to do is to redistribute income because it creates a moral hazard–reliance on government welfare.
It may not be obvious, but the moral hazard reactionaries refer to is an expression of nihilistic philosophy.
Nietzsche is the most recognized proponent of nihilism. Having an existentialist aspect, it has a modern, post-industrial appeal.
With the emergence of science and technology, that there is a purpose to life is an emergent, philosophical question. Whether anyone thinks philosophy is relevant or not, this question presents a risk that cannot be ignored.
For the nihilist, the goal in life, independent of philosophical sentiment, is to win the game. There are really no rules to go by. The rules are made up as we go along and, Nietzsche says, for example, moral sentiment is used as a means to win the game. Thus we have the notion that poor people exploit rich people, taking their property in the name of doing the right thing, which they argue, as a practical matter, to be the wrong thing to do.
A two-party system works well with nihilist philosophy. Using the pluralistic form of a counter-identity, it actually functions as a one-party system.
The linear progression is factorial. Over time, the sequence of events is operationalized to merely occupy more space over time to infinity, which appears to confirm the fact of its natural, ontological existence. What is bad about that–the objective moral hazard–is that it ignores the real risk, creating risk-value, that cannot be ignored.
As the risk accumulates and accelerates, occupying more space over time (getting factorially closer to the event horizon of its true identity), it is so massive it cannot be passive (like in a free market). It gains a catastrophic proportion. The risk-value becomes retributive.
Occupying space over time, existing the measure that naturally resists the notion of being and nothingness, the risk goes gamma (measuring the moral hazard).
(Articles on risk dimension and retributive value by griffithlighton can be found on the world wide web.)
As congress gets closer to another deed of daring-do, dealing with debt and default, what does demanding more for the rich and less for the poor objectively measure, exactly?
The retributive value is a risk ontology. It is a debt that will be paid, but its determination is never zero, exactly, because it is an on-demand existence, after all!