3. How We Got Here

 

• How We Got Here
• How The Population Incorrectly Frames The Issue
• But The Real Cause of Failure Is ….
• How The Intellectual Class Frames The Crisis
• The Feminine Means of War 
• Reasons for The Emergence of Conflict
• The Resulting Asymmetry of Power
• Asymmetry of Power Between the Left and the Right
• Present Asymmetry of Power Use in America
• Power and Asymmetry in the Triangle Model
• Decidability through Reciprocity
• Conclusion: Asymmetry and the Pursuit of Power
• Historical Context: Evolution of Power Dynamics in the U.S.
• The Right’s Balanced Approach
• Social Psychology of Power and Responsibility
• Institutional Outcomes of Power Asymmetry
• Refined Analysis: Asymmetry of Power in Subsidy and Responsibility

 

 

How We Got Here

The present (third) age of expansion. History:  (

• Ages:
  • 1 – Feudalism: Early Middle Ages to the Late Middle Ages (roughly 9th century to the 15th century)
  • 2 – Chivalry: High Middle Ages (roughly 11th century to the 15th century)
  • 3 – Commercial Capitalism: Late Middle Ages to Early Modern Period (roughly 14th century to the 18th century)
  • 4 – Monopoly Capitalism: Industrial Revolution to the 20th century (roughly late 18th century to the early 20th century)

• Start of the Age of Recovery 1200 – Restoration of the classical works from the middle east, the restoration of trade by the Hanseatic League, the formation of the free cities, the reformation of crhistianity by Aquinas and the Scholastics.
  • The First Wave – The Restoration of European Self Determination (Renaissance) 1300+
  • The Second Wave: – The Fall of Constantinople 1453 forcing the age of sail.
  • The printing press and mass production of knowledge 1440
  • The Thirds Wave of Reason – The Reformation
  • The The first scientific revolution 1600s
  • The invention of crucible steel in britain in 1740
• Start of The Age of Expansion: ~1730 – 1830,
  • Industrial revolution: 1750-1900 (the cricket in 1776)
    • Was made possible by financial capitalism and the rule of law necessary for the the development of stock corporations – which became ossified in monopoly capitalism.
  • Aristocracy caves: 1830-1885
    • Marx and Company 1847 (Labor)
  • The theory of the leisure class emergence 1899 (Upper middle)
    • destroying the empire by monopoly capitalism by 1914 (war);
    • The shift from moral to economic decidability (measurement) in government.
    • The shift of aristocracy and nationalism by the rise of financialism and globalism and unfortunately mass democracy instead of responsible democracy. (british empire and colonialism)
    • The success of the upper middle class (finance, industry, media) in replacing the aristocracy (military, political)
  • The progressive ambition of the managerial state (technocracy) 1910 – 1930s (Colonel  Edward M House – Describing it (1912); Burnham: The Machiavellians 1942);
    • The Financial Sector, The Corporations, and the Capture of the State by financial sectors.  (Recognition of Rothschild 1885, by Queen Victoria) (concentration camps in south africa in 1900)
    • The utility of finance in the capture and settlement of the american continent and the british empire in particular.
  • 1950s – The mantle to the american empire (from the center of the civ (england) to the periphery (usa and the west) 1900-1945;
    • 1930s – The postwar migration of jewish-german marxists to the USA converting labor marxism to cultural then race marxism (leninism).
  • 1950s-60s – Fomenting Conflict: The Capture of Progressivism (positive, christian) by the Marxist Sequence (negative, jewish) ; T
    
    NET RESULT
• A problem of measurement (failure of accounting) – baiting into hazard. A failure of full accounting.
  
  

3) The Age of Discord, Conflict, an Collapse

• The Hostile (Criminal Elites) Made Possible By This Shift
  • The Destruction of the British Empire by Financial Elites and the movement of financial elites to the USA. (They can’t tolerate productivity competing with financial parasitism.)
  • ….
• Power via Money and The Vote: The Progressive (positive christian caretaking) vs Marxist (negative and atheistic and materialistic jewish) Revolutions
• The Introduction of Women (Irresponsibility)
  • Women voters rapidly moved from responsible to irresponsible voters NOTE (because that is the origin of sex differences.)
• Them anagerial revolution: In talking classes, in industry and Government.
  • Traditional capitalist entrepreneurs are being replaced by a new class of professional managers – (imitating the soviets)
  • The credentialist revolution, (defeating meritocracy Military, nobility, industry) in government 
  • The capture of talking classes (church) Academy, Education, Media, Entertainment in the private sector
  • Contrary to Burnham it was and remains the financial sector that holds power, not the corporations nor the state.
• New Monopoly outside the Market: (substitution for the church) The collapse of the division of labor between the church (familial and local social administration) and the Aristocracy (economic, political,  and strategic administration) which was a marketplace, and their capture by managerial government and education both of which feed their constituency (financial, media, academy) – leaving only the law, and the subsequent assault on the law as the last institution of western cohesion. (Rez, Kelsen, Dworkin, Rawls).
• Race Marxism and the end of europeanism, and the import of underclasses (irresponsibility, dependency, wage reduction)
  • ie: Africans calling themselves irish is an application of credentialism.
• The Export of Production to combat unions and their control of government, resulting in labor arbitrage.
• The expansion of debt to compensate (reagan) to increase consumption, in particular home ownership. (debt slavery)
• The demographic tipping point of population dilution (wiining by immigration instead of ideas)
• The final solution by the left at power seizure under obama as the ‘transitional president’ handing it over to hillary clinton (a dedicated leninist)
• The advent of social media, awareness of factions, and the beginning of popular conflict, unrest, and retribution.  (End of control of the narrative.)
• Public awareness Making it personal (personal to impersonal, moral to amoral): (Repetition of the inesntion of money and credit in the iron age)
  
  • The destruction of the economic viability of middle and working classes
  • the collapse of mating, dating, family, reproduction
  • the decline of aggregate IQ to second world status
  • the decline of economic military and strategic advantage
  • the strategic reallocation of strategic power, the end of western expansion, the restoration of civilizational differences in organization

How The Population Incorrectly Frames The Issue – a Distraction

Why Classical Liberalism and Liberalism (progressivism) failed (Contrary to Deneen.)

• • ‘Achieving liberalism’s ambitions’ is false.
  • Classical liberalism didn’t fail, but Liberalism(progressivism did)
    • Classical Liberalism…
      • continuos production of market opportunity from which commons reducing costs for all may be produced if successful
    • Progressive Liberalism…
      • False Promise of Endless Growth and redistribution increasing income for some if successful, while producing drags on that capacity for growth.

But The Real Cause of Failure Is ….

( … )

• Hostile elites, they express themselves through the ternary logic of coercion.
• insufficient institutional defense both legislative, court, and monarchic; failure of system of measurment to allow institution defense against them.
• The populist movement to reform against the wishes of the ‘unnatural pseudo elites’ and networks of elites by ‘natural (demonstrated) elites’.
• A relatively novel means of warfare by those elites given the combination of technology, democracy, women, and immigration.

 

How The Intellectual Class Frames The Crisis

• Overproduction of Elites
• But it’s obscuring the cause of that overproduction and the strategy and tactics of that overproduction.
• And it’s missing why “this time is different – again”

• Ternary Logic of Polity Formation (institutions)
• History of Adding Agency to A European Polity.
• “it’s Just Women”
• Why Are We Afraid of The Truth? 

The Feminine Means of War 

• •  
  • 

• • Https://youtu.Be/ya Gc4j M Gc Vu?t=198.  426, 1772 (election)

Differences in Alienation from Cause and Consequence:

• • • ………………Masculine vs Feminine (insulated) ..Outcome Over Time vs Experience in Time …………….Capitalizing vs Consuming ……………………..Rural vs Urban(insulated) ………………………High vs Low Opportunity Cost (insulated) ………………….Agency vs Non (urban, Insulated) Vocational (practice) vs College (theory, Insulated) …………………..Market vs Bureaucratic (insulated) .replacement Repro. vs Below Replacement Repro. ………………..Exposed vs Insulated ..Tangible Criminality vs Systematic Criminality

Subsequent Differences in Premises

• • • The Maternal Feminine Left Empathizing	The Paternal Masculine Right Systematizing
      Utopianism Equality and Irresponsibility.	Empiricism Meritocracy, Responsibility, and Proportionality
      Humans Are Perfectible	Humans Are Inherently Flawed
      Good People in Power Can Save the World	Power Corrupts
      The Future Is All Progress	It’s Possible to Degrade Back Into Barbarism
      The only Real Things Are Materially What You See	There Is a God Or There Is a Natural Law Or Empiricism Over  Anti-Idealism
      Inequality Comes from Oppression.	Inequality Is Normal Result of Differences in Ability and value to one another.
      Everyone Is a Blank Slate Which Is Socialized	Races, Classes and The Sexes Are Genetically Different.
      Cultural Differences Are Arbitrary and Can Easily Be Transcended	Cultural Differences Are Important and Resistant to Change
      Tradition Holds Us Back	Tradition Is Empirical and Valuable Even if We Don’t Understand Why
      Its Wrong to Judge Someone by Their Results Instead of Intentions (inputs)	You Can Assess Things by Competency (outcomes)
      You Have Loyalty to All Humanity, Not Your People	You Have Loyalty to Your Group Over Others

    •  
      
      

Subsequent Lies:

• • • Left Lies Outright, Right Uses Hyperbole

    • Physical Laws End of Scarcity Behavioral Laws Self Interest Equality Sex Differences and necessities Advantage and natural selection Neoteny and Genetic Load (idealism and stagnation left vs realism and evolution right) Evolutionary Laws Sex Differences Genetic Load Class Differences Natural Selection Logical Laws Truth

  •  

Differences in Education

• • • ( … )
    • 
    • 

Differences in Occupation

• • • ( … )

Differences in Resulting Control:

Feminine Verbal Left Coastal Geography 70% of Wealthiest Counties (blue Islands)	Masculine Physical Right Centralized Geography 80% of Territory and Transport (red Seas)
Controls Nearly Every Institution in Every ?eld: Academy, State, Media, Entertainment Tech (immigrant Labor) Deep State	Controls Necessary Workers: Manufacturing, Transport, Distribution, Infrastructure Controls Resources
More Young Women Non-Families Status by Consumption with Irresponsibility for Capital Bureaucratic Culture (verbal Priesthood)	More Young Men Families Status by Responsibility for Capital Regardless of Consumption Warlike Culture (action Military)
More Allied Foreign Support	More Hostile Foreign Support

Reasons for The Emergence of Conflict

• ( Table, Given the Above Alone )
• From One Family One Vote to One Sex One Vote W/o Accommodating by Houses of Government Maintaining Trade Between Classes and Now Sexes.
•  

The Resulting Asymmetry of Power

I would like to explain the asymmetry of the use of power in the present american circumstance given the opposing wants of the left and right, where, at least in the abstract the left seeks to limit or eliminate individual responsibility regardless of externalities versus the right that seeks to maximize individual responsibility precisely because of the externalitiess.

To explain the asymmetry of power in the current American context, with respect to the opposing goals of the left and the right, we can apply our framework of power’s dimensions and reciprocity:

Asymmetry of Power Between the Left and the Right

1. Left’s Use of Power: Limiting Individual Responsibility Regardless of Externalities

   • The left tends to focus on social welfare and equality of outcomes, often aiming to reduce individual responsibility through the expansion of state influence, social programs, and redistributive policies. This approach generally downplays the role of externalities—the unintended social, economic, or environmental consequences of individual and collective actions.
   • Power is primarily exercised through:
     • Force/Defense: The state uses coercive mechanisms (laws, regulations, and taxation) to force compliance with policies that redistribute wealth or provide universal social services.
     • Inclusion/Exclusion: Social and cultural pressures are used to include marginalized groups while often ostracizing those who resist the dominant progressive ideologies (e.g., cancel culture, social exclusion).
     • Boycott/Trade: Less emphasized, though economic pressure is applied in the form of regulation and control over private enterprise to enforce social goals.
   • Asymmetry: The left uses power in ways that often lead to reduced individual accountability, as policies prioritize collective responsibility over the consequences of personal actions, creating a system where externalities are absorbed by society rather than the individual.

2. Right’s Use of Power: Maximizing Individual Responsibility Due to Externalities

   • The right prioritizes personal responsibility, meritocracy, and individual autonomy, seeking to ensure that individuals are accountable for the externalities they create. The right’s perspective is that freedom and responsibility are inherently linked, and power should be used to reinforce reciprocal obligations in both economic and social life.
   • Power is exercised primarily through:
     • Boycott/Trade: The right emphasizes the market’s role in enforcing responsibility, using economic pressure (e.g., deregulation, free market policies) to reward or punish behavior. Economic incentives and disincentives are seen as a primary way to ensure individuals bear the consequences of their actions.
     • Force/Defense: The state is seen as a guarantor of property rights and national security, but the use of state power is restrained to enforcing contracts, property laws, and reciprocity.
     • Inclusion/Exclusion: Social conservatism plays a role here, with an emphasis on traditional values, often promoting inclusion based on conformity to established norms and excluding those who deviate from them (e.g., cultural conservatism, community-based expectations).
   • Asymmetry: The right uses power to ensure individuals face the consequences of their choices, emphasizing reciprocal obligations and the mitigation of externalities through personal accountability.

Present Asymmetry of Power Use in America

• The Feminine Maternal Left’s Strategy: Focuses on collective responsibility, where individual accountability is often diminished in favor of collective well-being, sometimes leading to institutionalization of irreciprocity. The left’s policies tend to shield individuals from the consequences of their actions, relying on state mechanisms and social influence to redistribute burdens, even if it imposes externalities on society (e.g., deficit spending, welfare programs).
• The Masculine Paternal Right’s Strategy: Seeks to maximize individual accountability, with power used to enforce market-driven reciprocity. The right opposes shielding individuals from consequences, emphasizing that externalities—whether economic or social—should be borne by the responsible party.

Power and Asymmetry in the Triangle Model

• The left’s application of power tends to be concentrated around force (state coercion) and inclusion/exclusion (social influence), often bypassing the boycott/trade (market forces) dimension, leading to a reduction in individual responsibility for externalities.
• The right’s application of power is more balanced between boycott/trade and force, with inclusion/exclusion being secondary. This leads to a system where externalities are internalized by individuals through market mechanisms, and state power is used minimally to enforce contracts and reciprocity.

Decidability through Reciprocity

• Reciprocity serves as the means of decidability between these opposing uses of power. For the left, the emphasis on collective responsibility can lead to irreciprocity, where those benefiting from social programs are not held accountable for the externalities they impose on others.
• For the right, reciprocity demands that individuals bear the full consequences of their actions, making sure that externalities are accounted for by those who create them. In this framework, power is used to enforce reciprocity, preventing irreciprocity from institutionalizing.

Conclusion: Asymmetry and the Pursuit of Power

• The asymmetry in the use of power reflects the fundamental divide between the left’s desire to mitigate individual consequences and the right’s emphasis on forcing individuals to bear their own consequences. This difference results in competing visions of how power should be exercised, with each side pursuing its version of reciprocity or irreciprocity, depending on their view of responsibility and externalities.

This framework  explains the current ideological conflict in America in terms of power dynamics and responsibility.

—“The power to demand responsibility by the suppression of authority vs the power to demand irresponsibility by the production of authority.”—

deepen the analysis by expanding on the historical context, social psychology, and institutional outcomes that have shaped the current asymmetry in the use of power. Here’s how we can add more layers of depth:

1. Historical Context: Evolution of Power Dynamics in the U.S.

• The Left’s Expansion of State Power:

  • The growth of the welfare state in the 20th century, particularly under the New Deal and Great Society programs, expanded the state’s role in mediating economic externalities (e.g., unemployment, healthcare) through redistributive policies. The left’s approach developed from the belief that the market alone could not correct systemic inequalities or protect the most vulnerable, requiring state intervention.
  • This interventionist philosophy was reinforced by the progressive movement of the early 1900s, which argued for the moral duty of the state to mitigate social inequalities. This led to a gradual shift where responsibility for mitigating externalities (such as poverty, unemployment, or healthcare costs) was transferred from the individual to the collective.

• The Right’s Defense of Market Forces:

  • In contrast, the right’s philosophy emerged from a combination of classical liberalism and conservatism, which emphasized individual responsibility and limited government. From the Founding Fathers to the Reagan era, the right has viewed government intervention as a distortion of natural market forces, where personal accountability and self-regulation are essential to prevent the overreach of state power.
  • The rise of neoliberalism in the late 20th century reasserted the idea that the market, not the state, should bear the primary responsibility for regulating economic and social outcomes. This viewpoint sees externalities not as failures to be corrected by the state but as inevitable costs that individuals and businesses must manage through private solutions (e.g., innovation, competition).

Resulting Asymmetry:

• The left, in seeking to mitigate the harsh effects of the market, justifies the use of state power to redistribute wealth, even if it distorts market incentives and reduces individual accountability. The externalities—such as the economic costs of welfare programs—are absorbed by society.
• The right insists that the free market remains the best way to allocate resources and resolve externalities, promoting individual responsibility for outcomes. The right views the state’s role as ensuring the rule of law and property rights rather than intervening in market forces.

The Right’s Balanced Approach

The right favor’s friedmans’ approach and the church’s approach, which is that “subsidy is necessary for the unable, but subsidy is only acceptable in exchange for demonstrated behavior”. The left eschews this demand for self regulation in exchange for subsidy. They remain resistant to responsibility and accountability despite the positive consequences of subsidy in exchange for self regulation.

That’s an important nuance to add to the analysis. The right’s approach, as you mention, aligns with Friedman’s philosophy and the church’s traditional approach, which supports the idea that subsidy should come with reciprocal obligations—requiring demonstrated behavior or self-regulation in exchange for aid. This ensures that responsibility and accountability remain central even when assistance is given.

The left, on the other hand, tends to resist this conditionality, focusing on the idea that subsidy is a right without necessarily requiring demonstrated behavior or reciprocity. This creates a fundamental tension in how power and resources are distributed, with the left prioritizing compassionate relief and the right emphasizing earned responsibility.

2. Social Psychology of Power and Responsibility

• The Left’s Psychology: Nurture, Compassion, and Equality:

  • From a psychological perspective, the left’s approach is deeply rooted in nurturant morality (as proposed by George Lakoff) where society is seen as a family and the government as a parent responsible for protecting and nurturing its citizens. This leads to the view that individual failures are often the result of systemic inequalities rather than personal irresponsibility, thus justifying the redistribution of burdens through state intervention.
  • Cognitive Biases: The left is more likely to exhibit the empathy gap—the tendency to focus on immediate suffering (e.g., poverty or inequality) and to seek solutions that prioritize care and compassion over long-term consequences. This results in policies that diminish personal accountability, as the focus is on alleviating present harm, regardless of whether those affected bear responsibility for it.

• The Right’s Psychology: Authority, Hierarchy, and Discipline:

  • The right’s view of power is more aligned with authoritarian moral psychology, which emphasizes order, hierarchy, and personal responsibility. The right tends to see reciprocity in terms of earned outcomes—those who work harder or contribute more deserve more, and externalities (e.g., poverty) are often viewed as the result of individual failure or poor decisions.
  • Cognitive Biases: The right tends to exhibit a just-world bias, where people believe that individuals are primarily responsible for their own outcomes. This leads to policies that prioritize personal accountability and meritocracy, even if they result in increased inequality.

Asymmetry in Psychological Approaches:

• The left’s focus on equality and compassion leads to a desire to shield individuals from the consequences of externalities, believing that collective solutions can mitigate systemic inequalities.
• The right places individual responsibility at the forefront, seeing externalities as part of the natural order that people must confront, and believing that individuals should be accountable for the outcomes they produce.

3. Institutional Outcomes of Power Asymmetry

• Expansion of Bureaucratic and Welfare Systems:

  • The left’s emphasis on collective responsibility has led to the creation of large bureaucratic systems that manage social welfare programs. These systems have grown to insulate individuals from market forces (e.g., unemployment insurance, food stamps), but at the cost of fostering dependency and reducing personal accountability.
  • Institutions that redistribute wealth or provide services often operate with high time preferences, focusing on short-term relief without addressing the long-term sustainability of their programs. This has led to tragedies of the commons in social services (e.g., overuse of public healthcare, pension crises).

• Privatization and Market-Led Solutions:

  • The right’s philosophy has led to privatization of services and the deregulation of markets, aiming to increase efficiency by encouraging individuals and businesses to bear the risks and rewards of their decisions.
  • However, this approach can result in negative externalities where the most vulnerable are left without adequate protections (e.g., healthcare access, environmental degradation). In some cases, the right’s refusal to address systemic externalities has led to widening inequality and social fragmentation.

Asymmetry in Institutional Outcomes:

• The left’s systems provide immediate relief but tend to create long-term dependency and reduce the capacity of individuals to internalize their externalities.
• The right’s systems prioritize market efficiency and personal responsibility but often fail to account for externalities, leading to market failures where the costs (e.g., pollution, health crises) are shifted to society at large.

 

Refined Analysis: Asymmetry of Power in Subsidy and Responsibility

I. The Right’s Approach: Subsidy with Reciprocal Obligations

• The right, following Friedman’s approach and the traditional teachings of the church, acknowledges the need for subsidy but insists that it must come with reciprocal obligations. The right views subsidy not as an unconditional entitlement but as a contractual exchange where individuals receiving assistance must demonstrate self-regulation and responsible behavior.
  • Subsidy with Accountability: The right believes that subsidies should be reserved for those who are unable to sustain themselves but that these individuals must demonstrate effort or positive behavior in return. This could manifest in requirements like work programs, education, or rehabilitation, ensuring that those receiving aid contribute back to society.
  • Moral Underpinnings: Drawing from both Friedman’s philosophy and religious teachings, the right argues that without reciprocal obligations, subsidy fosters dependency and removes personal responsibility. The idea is to ensure that subsidy becomes a tool for empowerment, helping individuals improve their situation by aligning aid with behavioral incentives.
  • Examples: Policies that promote workfare over welfare, drug rehabilitation programs that condition aid on compliance with treatment, and educational stipends contingent on academic performance all reflect this approach.

II. The Left’s Approach: Unconditional Subsidy and Resistance to Accountability

• In contrast, the left tends to approach subsidy as an unconditional right, focusing on the idea that the state has a moral obligation to provide for all citizens, regardless of their behavior or externalities. This view often resists the idea of tying subsidies to reciprocal obligations or demonstrated behavior, instead emphasizing the need for universal relief.
  • Subsidy without Strings Attached: The left’s resistance to attaching behavioral conditions to subsidies reflects its nurturant morality, where the focus is on immediate relief of suffering without requiring individuals to prove their worthiness of aid. The left argues that imposing conditions creates barriers to access and unfairly penalizes those who are most vulnerable.
  • Egalitarian Ideals: The left’s philosophy is rooted in egalitarianism, where the goal is to level the playing field by providing unconditional support. From their perspective, requiring demonstrated behavior may reinforce existing inequalities, as it places extra burdens on those who are already disadvantaged.
  • Examples: Programs like universal basic income (UBI) or no-strings-attached welfare reflect this approach, aiming to provide a safety net without attaching conditions that could be seen as punitive or exclusionary.

III. Asymmetry in the Use of Power

• Right’s Use of Power: Conditional Support:

  • The right’s approach to subsidy reflects its broader philosophy of reciprocal power—where individuals are given aid, but with the expectation that they will give back in some way. Power is used to ensure that accountability is embedded in the system, preventing parasitic dependency. The right uses state power to incentivize productive behavior, focusing on policies that reinforce personal responsibility.
  • Power for Reciprocity: This approach aligns with the right’s use of power to ensure reciprocity in all interactions. Subsidy becomes a tool for rehabilitation, not just relief, with the aim of bringing individuals back into the productive fold.

• Left’s Use of Power: Universal Support:

  • The left, on the other hand, views subsidy as a moral imperative, seeing the state’s role as a caregiver that provides for its citizens without demanding reciprocal obligations. The left’s use of power seeks to create a safety net that alleviates suffering without requiring individuals to demonstrate self-regulation or accountability for their externalities.
  • Power for Compassion: This approach aligns with the left’s broader use of power to ensure universal access to resources. Subsidies are seen as a right, not an exchange, and power is used to ensure that vulnerable populations are protected without imposing additional burdens.

IV. Consequences of the Asymmetry in Subsidy Policy

• Right’s Perspective on the Consequences:

  • From the right’s perspective, the left’s unconditional subsidy approach creates perverse incentives that encourage dependency and erode personal accountability. Without the reciprocal expectation of demonstrated behavior, individuals may become reliant on the state and disconnected from market forces, leading to irreciprocity and societal inefficiency.
  • The right argues that subsidy without responsibility ultimately weakens societal structures, as individuals are not held accountable for their externalities, increasing the burden on society at large.

• Left’s Perspective on the Consequences:

  • From the left’s perspective, the right’s demand for demonstrated behavior creates barriers that prevent the most vulnerable from accessing the support they need. The left argues that such requirements are punitive and reinforce cycles of poverty, as those who are least able to meet the requirements are denied assistance.
  • The left sees universal subsidy as necessary to ensure basic dignity, arguing that conditional subsidies risk excluding those who are already disadvantaged and exacerbate inequality.

V. The Role of Reciprocity in the Court of Decidability

• Right’s Use of Reciprocity in Decidability:
  • The court of decidability, in the right’s view, must enforce reciprocity by ensuring that all individuals, whether they receive subsidy or not, are responsible for their externalities. The court should uphold policies that condition subsidy on self-regulation and demonstrated behavior, ensuring that the system remains fair and balanced.
• Left’s Use of Decidability:
  • For the left, the court of decidability should prioritize equality of access and universal protections, favoring policies that ensure unconditional support for all citizens. The left seeks to minimize the barriers to subsidy, even if that means reducing reciprocal obligations and focusing on compassionate relief over accountability.

Conclusion: Subsidy as a Tool for Power

• Asymmetry in Philosophy: The key asymmetry between the left and right comes down to whether subsidy is seen as a right or a reciprocal exchange. The right views it as a necessary intervention but one that must come with demonstrated responsibility, while the left views it as an unconditional necessity, focusing on compassion over accountability.
• Reciprocity as a Balance: The question of reciprocity remains central to the use of power in these contexts. For the right, reciprocity ensures that society remains fair and sustainable by tying subsidy to self-regulation. For the left, reciprocity is secondary to the need for universal care, ensuring that no one is left behind, even if it means reducing individual accountability.

---

This refined version incorporates the key distinction you emphasized regarding subsidy and responsibility, aligning it with the broader asymmetry in the use of power between the left and right. Does this capture the nuance you were looking for?

4. Decidability and the Central Role of Reciprocity

• Courts as the Decider of Power:
  • The courts represent the center of your triangle model, where reciprocity is the ultimate means of decidability between conflicting interests. The asymmetry in power use between the left and right often comes down to how courts enforce reciprocity—whether individuals or institutions are held accountable for their externalities.
  • The left’s perspective: Courts should focus on protecting the vulnerable by reducing the individual’s exposure to market forces and collective risks. This often leads to rulings that expand rights and entitlements, but may weaken the principle of reciprocity.
  • The right’s perspective: Courts should enforce contracts, property rights, and accountability, ensuring that individuals are responsible for their own externalities. This reinforces reciprocity, but may result in unequal outcomes.

Final Reflection on Power, Reciprocity, and Irreciprocity:

• Power can be used to either produce reciprocity or irreciprocity, depending on whether it is aligned with personal responsibility or with shielding individuals from consequences. The asymmetry in the use of power by the left and right in America reflects a deeper conflict over the distribution of responsibility for externalities.
• Reciprocity is the ideal balance, ensuring that power is used to enforce accountability while preventing irreciprocity—whether from individuals, institutions, or the state. The struggle between market forces and collective protections will continue to define the asymmetrical use of power in the U.S.

 

SUMMARY

The Systemic Cause of Our Present Civil War

• 1. Oversupply of Labor 
  • Women, Immigration, Outsourcing (labor Arbitrage), Automation.
    • Note There Is No More ‘shifting’ to Be Done with The Population as Was True in The Past. We Are at Human Capacity.
  • Decreasing Wages, Increasing Housing, Unnecessary Education (degree=indulgence Despite It’s only Indoctrination, and Only Necessary Because of The Prohibition on Iq, Ethics, and Personality Testing Combined with Involuntary Mandatory Association.)
  • Asymmetry of Prices in World Economy
• 2. Financialization – both parasitic and talent misallocated.
• 3. Overproduction of Pseudo Elites (vs Natural Aristocracy)
• 4  Replacement of Meritocracy with Credentialism in Pseudo Elite Production
• 5. Asymmetry of Returns
• 6. Surplus of Unmarried Males
• (Turchin and Piketty.)
  
  

The Real Cause of Our Civil War and All Civil Wars

• Real Cause Is Organized Crime
  • Difference Between Rule of Natural Law and Rule of Law in Trade
    
    

-“That’s all you need to understand. It’s just organized crime in political markets instead of reciprocity in economic markets.”-

And we are very good at the constant incremental suppression of crime if we create a market for its suppression in courts of law, common law, and if necessary militia law.