It’s really hard, measuring the bad with the good. It’s a struggle, and it can easily result in conflict with the only resolution appearing to be abject coercion of the values. This is where Objectivists argue the existentialism of an ontological existence.
Nietzsche, for example, said our existence is ontologically determined whether we think it is or not. The results are neither good or bad, but that does not mean there is no measure of “the existence.”
Existentialists emerged to explain the angst of an emerging, modern existence. Creating the means of our own destruction, however, isn’t new. Hobbes said, for example, if it were not for resisting the absolute power of the king, rather than reacting to the king’s coercive power, we would act to destroy each other. The king’s ego is, then, a functionally organized psychopathy. The pathology is bad but, no, in the aggregate, it can be good; and so, like the argument goes, greed, for example, is immoral but, objectively, in the aggregate, it is really good, which is why it exists, factorially assuming a neutral identity over time and space.
Creative-destruction is a common theme of modern existence because of how facile the factorial (its natural progression) has become. (Remember that the factorial of a non-negative integer is not something that derives from our existence. It just exists. We observe it, and there is no way to change it.) Not being able to actually change objective reality is a really scary thought.
The Enlightenment emerged with a positive expression of objective reality. Natural events progressively lose superstitious attributions. Nevertheless, we have discovered spooky forces at the quantum extremes of nature that do not conform to what can be described as a rational existence with quantifiable (Positivist) results.
(Remember that the Vienna School had someone ring a bell every time the logicians made a metaphysical argument. They had to dispense with the bell because it was annoying!)
Being enlightened, the reason we knew that atoms really exist is because we split them with measurable, effective results. Splitting an atom is not good or bad, and in the same way, the nihilist argues, the way it is used is neither good or bad. This is the same argument capitalists use to rationalize the massive detriment that occurs over and over again. To say it is good or bad is to give it value where none (“0”) actually exists, which is then used to neutralize the identity of the recurrent-risk value, effectively conserving the attribution yield, using the ontological argument.
(I hear the Vienna School’s bell ringing!)
Arguing the natural ontology of the risk detriment is highly metaphysical, but capitalists don’t agree. Making the ontological argument does not mean morality does not exist. Kant famously makes the ontological argument, and the measurable result is morality.
Practical application of a philosophical argument effectively occurs when we allow TBTF corporations rule by accumulating risk-value.
Big corporates say the detriment (the accumulative coercive value) naturally occurs, and not letting it occur (like Ayn Rand said) means bad things will surely happen (like inversion schemes and off-shoring profits). These risk-value schemes, intending to do harm (which is the risk-value), are the result of being TBTF, and like Mrs. Clinton says, it is not just a function of deliberately existing the TBTF-risk dimension in the financial sector, but in any sector.
The “natural identity” argument used by reactionaries is not a metaphysical argument if it proves to be a natural condition in every case, or what science calls a symmetry. However, deconsolidate industry and markets (do not let them get TBTF!) and watch the so-called “symmetry” disappear, and then geometrically reappear in the form of an Equivalent Coercive Value.
Realizing a free-market economia is to empower (actualize) the individual with the utility of collective coercive power, which is a symmetry that does, in fact, measurably exist across all possible risk dimensions, yielding to equivalent coercive power (the ECV-symmetry I write about). Collective power occurs without sacrificing the sovereignty of the individual (the objective reality of The Enlightenment). Curios, then, that capitalists argue it is only natural to consolidate power and use it like the king.
Capitalists then make Hobbes’ argument. If the masses do not focus on the probable detriment that results from consolidation (rising prices against falling wages and salaries–i.e., income inequality) then “the mob” will focus on stealing it from each other. The “disorder” naturally tends to violence, which leads (Rousseau said) to The Social Contract (what Enlightenment philosophers described as an unnatural condition, naturally aggressing violent overthrow of the sovereign).
The social contract (notice) is, in fact, Common Collective Power (the collectivism capitalists say they are against). It is a condition in which individuals give up their sovereignty to the state (and in the case of TBTF corporates, giving up sovereignty to the capitalists). What good is giving up to the capitalists (like Ayn Rand says you should, to realize your “natural identity” and neutralize the tendency to be violent) if you really want to be free!
Isn’t it time to neutralize the risk-identity of capitalism and add YOUR proper identity to “the existence!”
Hillary Clinton supports capitalism, Bernie Sanders does not–naturally yielding to YOUR identity, properly aggressing the overwhelming power of a massive-passive resistance that always exists, right now, ready to “just happen” on demand.