(Yielding to Patterns of Existence)
Nature has final authority.
Science, for example, endeavors to divine what the natural law is. We know what the law is by the method utilized to realize it. There is an interpretation that transacts the description of objective reality. Scientists call this, the method yield.
The method has “utility”–yielding to the numbers. If a hypothesis confirms or disconfirms over time, we say it is the empirical truth, yielding to the numbers, having the measurable frequency to verify the truth–thus having predictive utility.
We are obsessed with a measurable existence. We are naturally obsessed because we are possessed by a natural existence, naturally yielding to its final authority, one way or another, and so we endeavor to predict it to yield a self-determination.
Controlling for the probable risk, then, has naturally coercive value, which yields to an on demand existence, having recognizable patterns, like bureaucratic structures. These structures have identifiable dynamics; processes that both indicate what the objective is, and have predictive utility–verifying an apparent truth, or natural identity, of any particular structure. Its natural identity (the means to ends) has coercive value, which can be argued to have final authority–like the “Iron Law of Oligarchy.”
When Senator Sanders refers to oligarchy, he is referring to a means-to-ends legitimacy considered to be “the law” by proponents of the elitist model, like Alexander Hamilton.
Federalists, like Hamilton, described a new way to organize power so that it proceeds from the top down with proper legitimacy. Federalists intended to validate the natural existence of elite identity as the basic element that naturally defines what the final authority is, but without yielding to the numbers, exactly, which they considered to be quite unnatural and contrary to “the general welfare.”
This is the same pattern of resistance we see today. Instead of yielding to the numbers (which has the identity of empirical verification on demand) “We” are deliberately organized to structurally validate elite authority, said to be naturally existing on command.
Americans have spent a lot of blood and treasure on resisting command structures.
So, why do we support the natural legitimacy of an on-command identity, at all, deliberately operating with “superdelegates,” for example?
Yielding to the empirical value of the numbers in priority (like Adam Smith argued economically) naturally agresses a passive resistance on demand. That it can-and-will work is easily verifiable. So why aren’t we doing it!
What’s “the deal?”
(Keep in mind that Adam Smith, for example, described how, instead of standing at the doorstep of elite authority with pitchforks, “We” can aggress the passive resistance by simply saying no–acting, not reacting–with dollar votes. It is anonymous but effectively yields to, or measures, the natural, clearly recognizable identity of legitimate value described by verification–the objective reality–of the numbers, purely and practically obliged ON DEMAND.)
What do we have to do to really maintain a pattern of natural (organic) legitimacy from the ground up?
Vote For Sanders!