Back to Reality

Objectivists say that moral constructions are too ambiguous to be described as objective reality. Reason is common to us all, but only relative to what I reasonably think is good for me, which can be reasonably bad for you. Whatever moral value constructed to reconcile the difference naturally reduces to the raw power to make it actually happen.

Like Objectivist philosophy of the risk states, despite moral sentiments, the capacity to make things happen in a particular way, which is what the “makers” do, is the capacity to organize both support and resistance. If things are reasonably good for everybody, which is what capitalism is intended to do, raising the standard of living for everybody over time, then resisting it is unreasonable–futility!

Raising the standard of living for everybody is the existential value capitalists rely on to say it is the final stage of human, organizational development. Anything else takes us back to a former state of existence. Anybody that thinks otherwise is simply delusional, having utopian fantasies that don’t exist in the real world, and need to be brought back to reality.

The final authority is the measure of our natural existence, and according to conservatives, a declining median income and a rising rate of poverty is the measurable result of growing, government, regulatory authority, and the welfare state.

In communist China, for example, they don’t have cumbersome regs, and the people have their own retirement savings in equity markets and real estate. The result is the highest real rate of economic growth in the world, the air is so polluted you can’t go outside, and the stock market has been teetering on the tip of disaster.

Like President Obama and Bernie Sanders say, pollution is not a necessary evil. If we let the market decide, and not people that have consolidated all the income (the demand) to decide, then we have a free-market alternative–with economic growth (employment), and declining costs (slow inflation)–on demand! What’s the natural utility here? Is it letting the rich “make markets” so they get richer (inflation with rising unemployment), or let the market naturally exist to solve the emergent problem of measuring economic growth with how much declining median income it takes to increase the number of billionaires?


About griffithlighton

musician-composer, artist, writer, philosopher and political economist (M.A.)
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

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

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ 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 )


Connecting to %s