The Nerve of the Center

Equilibrium

Equilibrium

 When an action happens in politics, a leader wants to change the current order of things but what is never thought of is how it might amalgamate into dissension from the opposing side. It even causes a positive or negative reaction somewhere along the wing of the other party.

If you imagine the Britannia statue with her scales and sword, you can see an exampe of why all decisions will eventually balance out like the constellation Libra. To really make an impact on society it is always better to swing rather than stick because Centrism is too strong and stubborn to earn any real ground in the political field. Nothing happens.

To be really clever, you should mull over policy so much that you even invent what the reaction should be and guide the introduction of that issue. A Biritish example, taking a Conservative ideal like child benefit for firstborns only, there are a number of reactions that could happen after the law is realised. The action is Tory, but something left occurs.

Some options to the maker include: get the money by taxing every other class, use the money saved to go toward abortion charities and cot-death research, give more to families who are single-parent, and use some of the collateral of your property to fund your other children. Any of these additions to the primary law suddenly make it lefter – and so, an equilibrium is reached whereby action and reaction even up.

If the same politician chooses not to do anything then the issue must rely on normal, existing taxes. But, this means a free radical will appear along the leftwing somewhere and it could manifest itself as just about anything – from an uproar of left-voters to the cancellation of anything else good you have done. The loss of that parental support. Even opposing leaders taking what you did to reverse engineer it.

If a change is quite far-leaning, the spectral reaction is a similar way along the other wing, too. If the change is center, then it will result in another center. There are degrees and degrees of in-between postioning, too. So that whether you are far and wide or near and comfortable, it will always balance as if it were center to start with.

Like the Blair passage earlier, it can even take a few years until the swing dissipates into public opinion or economical effect because one government must inherit from the old whereas people don't change. The best course of action for a policy-maker is do all three examples in order to second-guess what the law might do on both sides. Only then is the equilibrium one whole package that politicians can forecast with.

Equilibrium exists in the financial market aswell. The buyer (who is always in the position of power) must surely be right-handed. So that the seller (who provides a service) is resultantly left-handed. If the price is miniscule and the name or product large, it will no doubt seem like the company relationship is the other way round with websites like Amazon collecting a user-base. Maybe equilibrium says they're both (varying one way or another in a half-duplex-full-duplex fashion).