(The “Sortacultural” Identity)
The father of modern economics, Adam Smith, was primarily concerned with the structure of ethical values.
Economists are always talking about structural incentives that induce probable behaviors; but is being induced really an act of self-determination, existing on demand?
As a practical example, let’s look at the current status of the American presidential campaign.
Mrs. Clinton is the presumed nominee of the Democratic Party. Now it’s time to “unify the party,” which yields to a conforming identity. The question is, then, who is going to yield?
What is the inducement?
If the objective is to gain utility, empirically valued by the numbers (the popular vote), what survives the creative process is then expected to be induced by the natural utility of the candidate’s platform. Without the naturally conforming identity (yielding to the empirical value of the numbers) the outcome WILL NOT have the value of legitimacy. Compromising the values is a “sortacultural” identity–an empirical value naturally derived on demand.
Yielding to the on-demand derivative manages the fully assumed risk of loss in priority, naturally yielding to what WILL induce it.
The comparative dialectic that yields to the moral imperative naturally derives on demand from diversity. Like Sanders said at a rally in Evansville, Indiana today, his candidacy draws independents to the Democratic Party’s platform. (Notice his “sortaculturalist” approach.) Like he said, his “insurgent campaign” is resisted by the established party system. The party is ready for it, cultured to resist the natural emergence of diversity that yields to the moral imperative measured on demand (the naturally conforming identity yielding to the empirical value of the numbers).
Like Sanders said, the proportion of superdelgates does not conform to the proportion of popular votes. The proportional propriety is what forms the legitimacy of the risk (relative to–measured by–the value of the reward) and the liability associated with it.
Proprietary risk proportion is arguably ambiguous until the values are compromised to accommodate the diverse identity that actually composes it. This leads to the fallacy of composition, which is an organizational game structured to produce an expected identity described as naturally induced, thus conforming to “objective reality” (the Iron Law of Oligarchy, for example).
(Notice the tendency to organize for the inducement of Objectivist philosophy, controlling for content to surplus the value. It is a cultured identity, however, intending to resist a competing identity that tends to naturally occur. The organized resistance intends to conserve the surplus value, controlling for the likely distribution of the expected reward, naturally described as the fully assumed risk of loss.)
Naturally, the two major parties claim diverse composition. They say they intend to promote diversity because of the strength (the virtue) of establishing a natural legitimacy (utility by the numbers). Naturally, what happens, then, is the two parties weed out the competition, establishing a natural identity (forming a risk tautology) falsely described as an ontology that has the determination (the expected, measurable effect) of natural law (yielding to the naturally legitimate distribution of the reward on demand).
Yielding to the strength of diversity, the Clinton campaign and the superdelegates will have to conform to demands of the Sanders campaign. It is the natural condition to gain (legitimately induce) a confirmed conformity, which will be later tested and verified, or not, by popular vote (empirically “determined”–valued by virtue of the numbers).
Despite all the attempts to rig the market, ontologically, it’s a free market, after all, naturally yielding to the passive resistance, on demand, if we let it be.