Novation is the legal term used for renewing the terms of a contract by continuing its operational use. The same thing happens when we want to resist an intended application of risk, yielding to a measurable value, but don’t do anything to change it, and that could be because it is, for example, TBTF. This is the operational technique (the coercive value) of being TBTF.
TBTF is an organizational technology. It “intends” to do something by design.
The intendency can be described as a natural property to limit the liability associated with the application of risk, but that means accountability (the capacity to modify behavior) is non-existent. There is no existing (real) moral equivalence. You would have to make it up–construct an argument to limit the liability, and that is what Objectivists say “the takers” do (like Nietzsche said) to control the application of risk. It is a power struggle and the more powerful people (like Ayn Rand said) “tend to” naturally win, “intending” the application of the risk.
Now, understand. TBTF is a technological innovation. It is an application of economic risk using what financiers describe as “innovative financial products.” This is what “the makers” make to keep “the takers” from taking what really belongs to them, which is described by Objectivists as the natural identity (the real property) of the capital. Making adjustments for property to actually distribute any other way is unnatural. No matter what, resisting natural identity (like Kant said) is futile.
Remember back to Senator Phil Gramm of Texas. An Objectivist, he was often heard ranting and raving about “We are sick and tired of them [the takers] living off our money!” Intending economic desperation is no evil. It’s our natural identity! Even though that was a long time ago, we are still grappling with this same philosophical argument about what the risk naturally identifies with.
While it may seem like Gramm’s objective identity of the risk is callous and inhumane, there are plenty of Reagan Democrats that agree with him; and when their natural identity gets to be more than they can bear, they switch, effectively in-novating the terms of “THE CONTRACT” (the obligation that technically defines the measurable risk). This becomes the “social contract”–you know, the philosophy of describing the origin of natural rights, proceeding from the state to the individual that “We” Constitutionally reject as being non-existent. If it does not really exist, then why do we keep reinventing it?
Does that mean Rousseau was right? If it means that the individual and the state are the same thing, then Thomas Hobbes and Thomas Paine both agree with Rousseau. Despite all the technicals (stochastic oscillators, and Fibonacci indicators, and inverted yields…), the real argument is philosophical, but Objectivists say it really isn’t.
Objectivists argue the Positivist perspective of knowing what objective reality actually is. “They” are sure what it is, which is why, for example, the Republican-controlled congress (having the secret knowledge) will not compromise. Compromising the truth can’t be the path to “the good life.” It just accumulates errors (externalities) that then have to be incorporated by the power elite, intending to keep us from experiencing the moral hazard of yielding to an unnatural identity. Like Reagan said, “Government is the problem. Not the Solution!”–which is to reject the social contract.
What is the natural, commonly divisible symmetry that freely associates, here?
What is it that in-tends to be done–that we are all naturally obligated to–but is not intended to be done, by design?