Even paid agitators can bring up important points that need to be discussed. Even if everyone who Liked this page already knows this, lets discuss principles. This word is all over America these days, but it has been so overused that it seems to have lost its meaning to many people. Lets start with the book definition (as soon as youre bored you can skip past the definitions, of course :) ): 1) -a fundamental truth or proposition that serves as the foundation for a system of belief or behavior or for a chain of reasoning. -a fundamental source or basis of something. -morally correct behavior and attitudes. -a general scientific theorem or law that has numerous special applications across a wide field. -a natural law forming the basis for the construction or working of a machine. 2) -a fundamental source or basis of something. -a fundamental quality or attribute determining the nature of something; an essence. -an active or characteristic constituent of a substance, obtained by simple analysis or separation. [source: Google Definition; search= principle definition] Now that its been clearly established that a principle is something fundamental and foundational, the basis for something, we can think of great ways to apply this definition. Since this is the basis for something why not use it as the basis for a persons life? And, if a principle - or set of principles - is the foundation of a persons life, what does that mean? It means that the person has a consistent decision on a specific principle every single time they are challenged on that principle. In other words, if something is a principle then its something that is true in every case pertaining to that principle. In logic something that is true in every case is called a tautology. For example, if I said The sky always appears blue you would rightly point out that during storms the skys appearance isnt blue: That statement ISNT a tautology. However, if I said instead The sky is always blue most people would agree that this is a tautology since, even in storms, the sky above the storm actually is still blue (even though it may not APPEAR to be from the ground). Lets disregard the aurora borealis (Northern Lights) for the purposes of this simple example so things will make more sense. So, a principle is always true in every case as is a tautology. So, in the example above we can see that the tautology The sky is always blue is a principle as well. Thinking in these terms means we can plot a steady course in life without veering off course by making a decision that goes against our set of principles, or tautological statements. Another key point to understand is that our lives are nothing more or less than the decisions we make. So each one of them counts for something...dont waste them - even one of them. Making the same decision about a principle that you have chosen each and every time that principle is challenged means you will be as steady as a rock in your lifes walk. And no one will be able to trick you into doing something against your principles because you are well-equipped to answer them in a principled manner. Case-in-point: The 17th Amendment. In case you know nothing about business negotiations heres a crash course. How many representatives are required to have a reasonable agreement between parties written into a legally binding contract? Answer: As many as the final contract will effect. This is why our govts (local, state, and federal) hold public hearings...because the final contract the govt agrees to will effect the public (the public is a primary stakeholder in these negotiations). And this is the first principle of negotiations: All stakeholders must be present. With this understanding I can easily identify the entities in the United States that will be effected by every federal law: 1) We the People 2) The States 3) The Executive Branch that executes the laws (these are called the Primary Stakeholders) That means that all three of these stakeholders need to be actively negotiating on every federal law before its passed. If one of them is not present it would be like buying a car without negotiating with the dealer. Is that something you would do? Theres a post on this page that explains the folly of that exchange a non-negotiator would have with a car dealer. If you dont get the point from reading this, youll understand it perfectly after reading that! Since you wouldnt accept a car from a car dealer without negotiating for it, how can you agree to make the States accept federal laws that they had no input into? That breaks the first principle of negotiations, right? Compromise on this principle and the inevitable outcome is that States will resist federal laws (friction between DC & the States will result), just as you would resist the car dealer charging you for the car you didnt negotiate over! Has this been the norm in our lifetimes? Yes, it has. And now you know exactly why. America has forgotten how to live by principles and this is just one small example with nationwide implications and effects. By restoring the Constitution to its pre-17th Amendment state we can relieve the friction caused by States resisting federal law - since theyll be at the negotiating table again, as they were in the beginning of our great Republic.
Posted on: Mon, 06 Oct 2014 05:21:38 +0000
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015