E-Motion and Pre-Occupation of the Policy Space (The Impulse to Correct)

Governance and public policy is space preoccupied with status positioning. Being subordinated to the risk defines status--who rules and who is ruled.

In a free market, we all rule together. Governance is purely democratic. The representative form is subordinated to the risk so that what is re-presented is confirmation of the risk-value. The determined value of the risk rules, or governs, through self-determination, objectively expressed and directly verified by all parties, which is why government interference is considered a moral hazard.

As soon as we are forced to subordinate, governance by authority rules rather than the empirical ontology of the outcome. Risk is then subordinated to its classified consumption (it is de-ontologized), representing the rulers as unsubordinated to the ruled. The insubordination accumulates retributive value that, by its nature, is emotionally charged and tends to be governed outside the empirical rule of reason.

(We often hear our representatives say, for example, that public policy is made and administered to promote the general welfare whether we all like it or not. The detriment suffered is turned into a public good for consumption. The "self" in the representative form gains a retributive value, transferring "the risk" to the gamma dimension where it is, deontologically, much more volatile--unpredictable--by definition because it is no longer ontologically self-determined.)

The value to be retributed (meaning that it has not been added, but gained by another party, or transferred by assignment in zero-sum) must be managed with authority to maintain the presentation of that risk-value. Market value takes a representative form--the zero-sum does not represent a mutual benefit but demonstrates (is re-presented) to verify the subordinated risk. The power structure is confirmed to be representative and to contain the quantum value (the unsubordinated market risk) to be retributed, which demonstrates power.

When consumers bargain in a free market, they govern the risk. Those whom the market favors gain market share and gain status. That position can quickly change, however, if consumers are dissatisfied with price, quantity, and/or quality. This is alpha-risk volatility in which entrepreneurs are subordinated to an unconsolidated risk proportion.

As soon as industry and markets become consolidated, consumers no longer occupy consensual policy space. Instead, we become preoccupied with status positioning to avoid the risk. Since risk cannot be avoided, but deferred to the future, the present is preoccupied with the probability of the risk--or beta volatility.

(Monetary expansion is supposed to resist beta volatility through the extension of credit. With stability being the objective, we seem to be preoccupied with reducing volatility without the economic expansion that creates jobs and the demand necessary to stabilize the economy.

With the more credit extended the more potentially volatile the economy becomes, we can easily infer that there is value misplaced. Value is being improperly derived from the fully assumed risk proportion in the form of detriment. Reactionaries, however, have an entirely different attribution.

Average incomes, reactionaries explain, are too imprudent for the extension of credit, which implies that "average people" are naturally subordinate to the better judgment of elite authority. Specifically, value is being added in the form of subordinated debt with an accumulative, retributive value so big that the more credit extended the higher the beta risk--the greater the opportunity to consolidate assets and rule with negative equity.)

In a free-market environment, credit extends to support subordination of risk, not resist it. Instead of preventing volatility, a free market uses it to control behavior--to govern; and although retributive value presents as mutual value, ontologically derived, reasonably fair and equitable, relatively stable and unemotional, volatility (and its quantum of emotional baggage--greed, fear and loathing--that empirically measures the risk) nevertheless rules.

Volatility governs the risk. High volatility technically indicates the level of innovation, and low volatility the level of popular consent (low angst). Ambition (the position of status) effectively subordinates to the risk (the productive incentive to innovate and occupy a position of high status measured by the marginal profit).

Achieving status in a free-market environment does not, mind you, reduce angst, but subordinates it to a high level of alpha-risk volatility. To reduce the value "angst" it is necessary to subordinate, which is, of course, exactly what an aristocratic identity is loathe to do by objective occupation.

In a free market, status does not pre-occupy the people, the people pre-occupy the achievement of status. An aristocratic identity does not rule its subjects, but is subjected to the will of the people.

If we want to change the identity of our objective reality, in the same way e-commerce is changing the way we do business, we have to get e-motional.

Changing the way status is determined is a highly charged, emotional value. Elites have no intention of subordinating to risk determined by the masses, and the best way to conserve occupation of the determining policy space is to fill it with emotion.

An appeal to reason does not mean we will not react with emotion. Reactionaries, liberals and conservatives alike, are always applying arguments to support programs that have an emotional, motivational effect that occupies policy space over time.

If "We" want to occupy critical policy space, it is necessary to act e-motionally--by building social networks into a virtual reality that eventually becomes the objective reality we all know to be the truth, but reacted to as a moral hazard.

The American Revolution continues, not by its preoccupation with elite identity but by virtual pre-occupation of space (the risk of loss fully assumed, or gamma-risk) that is charged with an e-motional wave (the impulse to act converging with the technical means to pull it into an objective reality).