Can we say the recent event in South Africa, where protesting miners were killed by police in self defense, occurred with moral authority, and if so, from what does that authority derive, or is it derivative at all? Is the event a predictable ontology with a categorical imperative or is it a teleological construction with an Objectivist, risk ontology that is apparent only when the event occurs at a particular time occupying a particular space?
These are not rhetorical questions or curious conundrums. Answering these questions in theory or in practice forms the philosophy of risk, which has real, measurable, technical value that determines the distribution of the reward and delimits the liability of the risk.
According to the Objectivist, morality is derivative value. (It is value with no absolute constancy, having as many values as there are observers, derived from all the probable circumstances they are in to form what is nothing but a random, objective, stochastic oscillation of the risk, forming clearly predictable patterns of probability in the aggregate.) It derives, as Nietzsche maintained, from the execution of power, which is the only thing that gives it constancy, much as Ayn Rand describes it. (In other words, technically, it has no added value. Technical data in the aggregate is devoid of subjective, moral sentiment because it does not really exist--it is not objective reality. The value we subjectively impart to moral sentiment results in unobjective, irrational behavior, which appears in the technicals as a predictable, algorithmic, objective ontology. When we provide welfare for the unemployed, for example, which technically presents as inflation with low productivity, Randians explain, we foolishly believe we are being morally responsible when, objectively, we are making the problem worse by destroying productive incentive. Rather than adding value it is really a loss in zero sum--what conservatives refer to as a moral hazard--because the economy loses the incentive to add supply that economically reduces the probability of the risk without all the confusing, relative ambivalence of political sentiment. The loss produces the violence, for example, that yields the value--the imperative--to kill protesting miners with moral authority. The deontology, according to the Objectivist, ontologically yields the risk to be avoided--that is, the value of the risk is always conserved in zero-sum, economically maintained to technically indicate error. The technicals, not moral sentiments, objectively indicate the right thing to do, demanding an economic solution derived from the individual rather than a collectivist, political solution--like the civil action taken in South Africa--derived from the state.) For a power elite, what is moral is whatever maintains power. So, as Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle pointed out, good people, ironically, are stuck with all the risk and bad people take all the reward.
Nietzche and Rand, however, fail to see the irony of good versus evil because the value of the risk is not morally derived from an imaginary world of ideas but derives from the real-world application of the risk. Morality is not integral to the good life but derives from the deontology of the risk--shaping it into whatever you want it to be on demand, not ontologically on command. Fascists, for example, who subscribe to Nietzsche's philosophy and maintain that the masses require a superman, or a super-ego, to direct them into the good life, much as Plato described it, fervently maintain power be legitimately structured on demand. Communists who want to maintain power on command are inimical to the individual freedom required to make demands in the marketplace and keep "the people" peacefully prosperous. As long as the non-elite have the freedom to prosper and advance in socio-economic class, by maintaining our natural inequality, the productivity required to get there on demand ensures the supply needed to actualize the good life that cannot be had without it being ontologically derived from those that have the power to execute it on demand in the marketplace. Once the capacity for leadership has been established to manage the risk, we are free to pursue the good life on demand with the power of self-determination, which is to describe an integral, ethical dimension (a deontology) where it objectively does not exist.
According to the objectivist, we are never where we want to be, and this lack of meaning, of arbitrary purpose always to be determined, is what gives meaning to an otherwise meaningless existence. Just look at the technicals. Everywhere we look is a fractal "sameness" of continuous oscillation. The only real meaning it has is the objective we give it, continuously oscillating between what we are and what we freely want to be.
Sunday, August 19, 2012
Friday, August 17, 2012
Risk Management and Moral Authority
When South African civil authority opened fire on an apparently homicidal mass of miners protesting a subsistence wage against rising prices, which forces their income below subsistence, the authority to kill the miners, however objectively immoral it may be in the aggregate (in the abstract), is considered categorically imperative within the relative space (the circumstances) at the time (the observed occurrence of the risk).
Civil unrest is in the offing. Managing the risk requires civil action with moral authority--the utility of the greater good, which means we have to define just exactly what that is. More importantly, as Ayn Rand points out, for example, defining what the objective is demonstrates who has the executive power, and therefore the capacity, to decide what "the good" is.
The reaction of civil authority in South Africa demonstrates the greater good is protecting property from those who will loot the wealth of the nation with homicidal fervor. While few reactionaries would disagree with this hypothesis, the first rule of law (what is categorically imperative), according to Ayn Rand, for example, is to renounce violence (not because it is immoral exactly, but because it is sure to demand a command elite, with moral authority, that enslaves the individual to the state, which could include the current power elite who are identified by the stateists as the heavy). Reactionaries are likely to agree with Rand's imperative in principle (in the abstract) but are sure to pose the probability of the risk in practice, which effectively makes the victims (the miners--the looters--motivated with homicidal tendencies) the heavy.
Renouncing violence, it stands to reason, requires eliminating all the probable causes and Rand, for example, says the best way to do that is to let the best and the brightest emerge in the free market to satisfy themselves. Selfishness in a free-market environment cures both shortages and, thus, the motive to be violent unless, of course, the motive is to loot the wealth that has been legitimately earned in the market.
Despite all the selfishness that obtains to reduce the probability of the risk, we currently face shortages in a crisis (gamma-risk) proportion, prompting the President, for example, to propose a distribution from the SPR to reduce the risk. Remember, however, the risk cannot be reduced, but it can be avoided.
While the risk of loss is fully assumed in priority, the probability that it will occur at any particular time can be deontologized (like the President may do with the SPR to relieve the economic burden for the 99%, which, you see, also protects the 1% from themselves) by shifting it to the future. The ontology, existing in priority, however, means that the risk is likely to accumulate mass. If it is not deconsolidated, the mass becomes critically unstable, much like what we have now with civil authorities, having made enquiry, for example, into how dark markets operate to accumulate risk, standing by, prepared to deontologize the risk in the gamma dimension with moral authority.
Civil unrest is in the offing. Managing the risk requires civil action with moral authority--the utility of the greater good, which means we have to define just exactly what that is. More importantly, as Ayn Rand points out, for example, defining what the objective is demonstrates who has the executive power, and therefore the capacity, to decide what "the good" is.
The reaction of civil authority in South Africa demonstrates the greater good is protecting property from those who will loot the wealth of the nation with homicidal fervor. While few reactionaries would disagree with this hypothesis, the first rule of law (what is categorically imperative), according to Ayn Rand, for example, is to renounce violence (not because it is immoral exactly, but because it is sure to demand a command elite, with moral authority, that enslaves the individual to the state, which could include the current power elite who are identified by the stateists as the heavy). Reactionaries are likely to agree with Rand's imperative in principle (in the abstract) but are sure to pose the probability of the risk in practice, which effectively makes the victims (the miners--the looters--motivated with homicidal tendencies) the heavy.
Renouncing violence, it stands to reason, requires eliminating all the probable causes and Rand, for example, says the best way to do that is to let the best and the brightest emerge in the free market to satisfy themselves. Selfishness in a free-market environment cures both shortages and, thus, the motive to be violent unless, of course, the motive is to loot the wealth that has been legitimately earned in the market.
Despite all the selfishness that obtains to reduce the probability of the risk, we currently face shortages in a crisis (gamma-risk) proportion, prompting the President, for example, to propose a distribution from the SPR to reduce the risk. Remember, however, the risk cannot be reduced, but it can be avoided.
While the risk of loss is fully assumed in priority, the probability that it will occur at any particular time can be deontologized (like the President may do with the SPR to relieve the economic burden for the 99%, which, you see, also protects the 1% from themselves) by shifting it to the future. The ontology, existing in priority, however, means that the risk is likely to accumulate mass. If it is not deconsolidated, the mass becomes critically unstable, much like what we have now with civil authorities, having made enquiry, for example, into how dark markets operate to accumulate risk, standing by, prepared to deontologize the risk in the gamma dimension with moral authority.
Thursday, August 16, 2012
Probability and Imperative
Determining what policies and programs fit our objectives is, as Paul Ryan points out, an intellectual endeavor. Much of that consideration is an ethical enquiry with a technical correlation that has probable value.
For example, the drought of 2012 is a detriment force majeure. The reduced supply increases prices and big profits will be made in the form of capital gains by "making the market more efficient" (RTV's like credit-default swaps and a panoply of other futures-contract devices that raise consumer prices and maintain a deflationary trend). Considering that the benefit is derived from the detriment (with added price increases reducing already beleaguered incomes supported by "headline risk" that efficiently destroys demand), we have to consider the moral value of turning the misery of others into the personal wealth of a small class called "the one percent."
Romney and Ryan argue that the value added from making markets more efficient (application of efficient-markets theory that allows risk to be accumulated and distributed in dark markets) is created from the destruction. What would otherwise be a dead-weight loss is managed into a capital gain that serves to peacefully distribute the scarcity (the risk of probable panic and civil disorder occupying "the headlines") with an on-demand, free-market legitimacy. So, technically, what is the value of the risk here?
Technically, the probability that an extreme drought will occur is 100%. The probability it will happen at any particular time is random, however, depending upon the capacity to read the signs that predict the event. Knowing that the detriment will occur with the prospect of profiting from it has moral value, and the knowledge of the probable detriment, keep in mind, appears in the technical oscillators that financiers use to quantify the probability of the risk.
The risk of loss is fully assumed. That is, the value (the financial reward) derived from the risk is equally imperative. So, Ayn Rand explains, for example, the risk-reward (the economic solution on demand) is devoid of moral value (it is purely ontological) because the cause and the effect is equally imperative (a rationale with which big bankers and their lawyers do whole heartedly agree, having a sense of complete objectivity that has, you see, the equivalent force, or legitimacy, of moral authority). This so-called "objective" valuation misprices the risk proportion.
When retirees see prices going up while the interest paid on their savings is going down (a reality achieved by technical objective), regardless of the technical reasons (the objective reality), the solution is politically motivated (positively charged with the legitimate force of a moral imperative that is evermore probable). While risk is not being added, dismissing the political risk as objectively irrational is to technically misprice the risk proportion to the reward.
Risk becomes disproportionate to reward because RTV's do not reduce risk. Instead, the risk accumulates into a political dimension--the gamma-risk dimension in which the probability is imperative.
Technical pursuit of objective reality misprices risk when it is ontologically assumed to be legitimately distributed with the reward when it has been actuarially avoided by objective. When the reward is quantumly gained in zero-sum, using RTV's, for example, the expected detriment is force majeure--it is categorically imperative, and if this imperative value is ignored, or avoided, the risk-value is mispriced and presents in a panic proportion.
Mispricing risk results in beta-risk volatility (remember, risk is not added but transformed) that eventually goes gamma (demanding a political resolution). The market is "made" to appear technically unpredictable--random and chaotic.
Up is down, down is up so that the "rational" (categorically imperative) thing to do is to make the market more efficient to achieve low entropic value with moral authority.
It is important to understand that the appearance of randomness exculpates the risk (see, for example, the force-majeure rationale regulators used to free MF Global executives of criminal liability). This legal limit to liability (premised on the ontology of large, complex, organizational technologies that the marketplace demands to be competitive) substitutes for the logic of collective action in the marketplace.
Stability is traded for instability to stabilize the risk, which is an insanity (a criminal insanity) that can only happen by decree. Ad-hoc rationality on demand that is relatively valued is traded for post-hoc rationales on command (by administrative-judicial decree) that have absolute value with the force and legitimacy of public authority.
When the marketplace is not "made" (consolidated) to be so-called "more efficient" but is allowed to operate unconsolidated, the risk is directly priced with empirical, imperative value that achieves verifiable accountability with moral authority.
For example, the drought of 2012 is a detriment force majeure. The reduced supply increases prices and big profits will be made in the form of capital gains by "making the market more efficient" (RTV's like credit-default swaps and a panoply of other futures-contract devices that raise consumer prices and maintain a deflationary trend). Considering that the benefit is derived from the detriment (with added price increases reducing already beleaguered incomes supported by "headline risk" that efficiently destroys demand), we have to consider the moral value of turning the misery of others into the personal wealth of a small class called "the one percent."
Romney and Ryan argue that the value added from making markets more efficient (application of efficient-markets theory that allows risk to be accumulated and distributed in dark markets) is created from the destruction. What would otherwise be a dead-weight loss is managed into a capital gain that serves to peacefully distribute the scarcity (the risk of probable panic and civil disorder occupying "the headlines") with an on-demand, free-market legitimacy. So, technically, what is the value of the risk here?
Technically, the probability that an extreme drought will occur is 100%. The probability it will happen at any particular time is random, however, depending upon the capacity to read the signs that predict the event. Knowing that the detriment will occur with the prospect of profiting from it has moral value, and the knowledge of the probable detriment, keep in mind, appears in the technical oscillators that financiers use to quantify the probability of the risk.
The risk of loss is fully assumed. That is, the value (the financial reward) derived from the risk is equally imperative. So, Ayn Rand explains, for example, the risk-reward (the economic solution on demand) is devoid of moral value (it is purely ontological) because the cause and the effect is equally imperative (a rationale with which big bankers and their lawyers do whole heartedly agree, having a sense of complete objectivity that has, you see, the equivalent force, or legitimacy, of moral authority). This so-called "objective" valuation misprices the risk proportion.
When retirees see prices going up while the interest paid on their savings is going down (a reality achieved by technical objective), regardless of the technical reasons (the objective reality), the solution is politically motivated (positively charged with the legitimate force of a moral imperative that is evermore probable). While risk is not being added, dismissing the political risk as objectively irrational is to technically misprice the risk proportion to the reward.
Risk becomes disproportionate to reward because RTV's do not reduce risk. Instead, the risk accumulates into a political dimension--the gamma-risk dimension in which the probability is imperative.
Technical pursuit of objective reality misprices risk when it is ontologically assumed to be legitimately distributed with the reward when it has been actuarially avoided by objective. When the reward is quantumly gained in zero-sum, using RTV's, for example, the expected detriment is force majeure--it is categorically imperative, and if this imperative value is ignored, or avoided, the risk-value is mispriced and presents in a panic proportion.
Mispricing risk results in beta-risk volatility (remember, risk is not added but transformed) that eventually goes gamma (demanding a political resolution). The market is "made" to appear technically unpredictable--random and chaotic.
Up is down, down is up so that the "rational" (categorically imperative) thing to do is to make the market more efficient to achieve low entropic value with moral authority.
It is important to understand that the appearance of randomness exculpates the risk (see, for example, the force-majeure rationale regulators used to free MF Global executives of criminal liability). This legal limit to liability (premised on the ontology of large, complex, organizational technologies that the marketplace demands to be competitive) substitutes for the logic of collective action in the marketplace.
Stability is traded for instability to stabilize the risk, which is an insanity (a criminal insanity) that can only happen by decree. Ad-hoc rationality on demand that is relatively valued is traded for post-hoc rationales on command (by administrative-judicial decree) that have absolute value with the force and legitimacy of public authority.
When the marketplace is not "made" (consolidated) to be so-called "more efficient" but is allowed to operate unconsolidated, the risk is directly priced with empirical, imperative value that achieves verifiable accountability with moral authority.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)