A quick Google Search defines Principle as:
A fundamental truth or proposition that serves as the foundation for a system of belief or behavior or for a chain of reasoning... a rule or belief governing one's personal behavior... morally correct behavior and attitudes...
(late Middle English: from Old French, from Latin principium ‘source,’ principia (plural) ‘foundations,’ from princeps, princip- ‘first, chief.’)
The foundational principles this nation was based on are Judeo-Christian. These principles have been repeated for as long as I can remember. Mention that to any modern day millennial and they will have an aneurism. And because we have lost the 'principle' of a well balanced education our young people are quick to claim their 'position' on an issue as a 'principle'.
The two are unrelated.
Positions can change according to new data (or at least they should). Principles are unwavering. They only change if a monumental, colossal shift occurs, either in one's personal life or society writ large.
Positions can change according to new data (or at least they should). Principles are unwavering. They only change if a monumental, colossal shift occurs, either in one's personal life or society writ large.
Both Principle and Position are nouns, so they are things, tangible and usable. As stated, a principle is foundational, fundamental.
A Position (if you do that same Google Search) is defined as more of a strategic place to be. However, as the definitions are spelled out and defined we can see how position and principle are confused as one and the same:
...a person's particular point of view or attitude toward something.... (Logic) a proposition laid down or asserted; a tenet or assertion... synonyms: viewpoint, opinion, outlook, attitude, stand, standpoint, stance, perspective, approach, slant, thinking, policy, feelings.. "the government's position on the matter".
It is that last synonym that sums it all up. Feelings.
Listen closely when some one tries to define their 'position' on something. They always ".. feel as if...", or ".. I feel that it was unfair..."
Feelings have no place when it comes to principles. Facts couldn't give a rat's ass about how you feel.
Our Declaration of Independence opens with these words, ".. We hold these truths to be self evident.." The Founders didn't 'feel' these 'positions' as self evident. That would have been an impossibility. Feelings and positions are by no stretch of the imagination self evident. Principles are!
Issac Newton's Laws of motion were not based on how he felt. They were based on exhaustive inquiry, testing and a realization that there were certain things a person cannot change no matter how they felt about it.
Issac Newton's Laws of motion were not based on how he felt. They were based on exhaustive inquiry, testing and a realization that there were certain things a person cannot change no matter how they felt about it.
Sir Isaac Newton first presented his three laws of motion in the "Principia Mathematica Philosophiae Naturalis" in 1686.
His first law states that every object will remain at rest or in uniform motion in a straight line unless compelled to change its state by the action of an external force.
The second law explains how the velocity of an object changes when it is subjected to an external force. The law defines a force to be equal to change in momentum (mass times velocity) per change in time.
The third law states that for every action (force) in nature there is an equal and opposite reaction.
Since Leftism requires one to not have any principles then the first law does not apply to them. No matter how hard one tries Leftists cannot be moved from their positions. Nor does the second law apply. Leftists never change their zeal, tactics or penchant for subterfuge to gain power.
Possibly the only law that applies to Leftists is the third one. Usually when a person offers an opposing viewpoint or fact the Leftist inevitably loses their minds.
The abortion debate is a perfect area to define by example what a principle is. People are always asked what their position is on abortion.
The abortion debate is a perfect area to define by example what a principle is. People are always asked what their position is on abortion.
I have NO position. My principle is that the Government should not be involved in people's private lives. Nor should you or I.
If Government held steady to that 'principle' then the debate over taxpayer funded abortion would evaporate. And if it is your 'position' that women should be allowed access to abortions then YOU pay for it! Compete in the open market. If the idea of Planned Parenthood is so fantastic then why can it not stand on it's own principle?
Because the killing of an unborn child is not a principle, it is a position.
Most government agencies, programs, entitlements are not principle based. They are there to provide assistance in regards to an ongoing societal problem such as poverty. In fact the vast majority of social programs are rooted in the position of managing poverty. Certainly not to eliminate poverty. If that were the goal of these agencies then after awhile that agency would cease to exist because the principle would be to eliminate poverty. Once the job is finished, pack up shop!
Most government agencies, programs, entitlements are not principle based. They are there to provide assistance in regards to an ongoing societal problem such as poverty. In fact the vast majority of social programs are rooted in the position of managing poverty. Certainly not to eliminate poverty. If that were the goal of these agencies then after awhile that agency would cease to exist because the principle would be to eliminate poverty. Once the job is finished, pack up shop!
Welfare in general would no longer have a leg stand on. Agencies are never working towards a principle based goal. It is always a 'position' based on manageable data.
Author and economist Loren Spivak (euphemistically known as The Free Market Warrior) has spoken eloquently on the concept of Leftists having no principles. The first one is Free Speech. Under no uncertain terms is anyone to be denied the right to speak, publish, report or assemble to speak what they hold as a principle or a position. Leftists think decidedly differently on this subject. They have no problem employing the thug tactics of ANTIFA to shut down any group they deem offensive especially on college campuses where the Liberal Free Speech protests of the 1960's began. That is because ( as Spivak says at the 5:10 mark) ".. Liberals have no principles at all because they are a movement of power..."
In the video below Spivak outlines a few more principles that are held sacred by Conservatives.
If you google "The 11 Commandments of Progressivism" you will see the tenets espoused by Leftist Elizabeth Warren. The humorous part of all this is that none of them are principles. They are just feelings about various issues. The most interesting one being #11;
"And we believe that corporations are not people, that women have a right to their bodies. We will overturn Hobby Lobby and we will fight for it. We will fight for it!"
That cannot be a principle because it is an oxymoron and none of what Warren states is even related. If corporations are not people then why do we tax them? And what do women's bodies have to do with Hobby Lobby? The other ten are just as all over the map as this one is.
You see, a principle is simple, usually a single sentence. If you go through the Warren list every "principle" contradicts itself. She claims "..equal means equal.." but is going to deny Hobby Lobby equal representation and treat them as unequal simply because the executives hold an opposing opinion than hers. She claims to believe in science but will equally disregard any scientist who questions the Climate Alarmism narrative.
Like the useful idiots of the Communist Revolution once a person is no longer of use to the Party they are discarded. Just as a position is discarded in favor a new one, especially one that gets you elected.
Leftists are always holding up a wet finger to the political wind to determine what position they should take on the current issue.
A common saying of the Left is; "Speak truth to power". This is a dubious statement. Unfortunately it is used ad-nauseum. It is substance-less. It basically states that whatever it is YOU believe should be the truth. It claims that whatever your position is on an issue should be empowered. Not the facts of an issue but, your position on that issue.
Speaking with the power of truth is principle based.
A common saying of the Left is; "Speak truth to power". This is a dubious statement. Unfortunately it is used ad-nauseum. It is substance-less. It basically states that whatever it is YOU believe should be the truth. It claims that whatever your position is on an issue should be empowered. Not the facts of an issue but, your position on that issue.
Speaking with the power of truth is principle based.
Truth (in and of itself) is very powerful. There is no way around it. It simply just is.
If Leftists accepted this simple axiom their entire agenda would be in jeopardy. You can take any Leftist position, apply truth to it and the entire argument dissolves. This simply cannot be allowed because speaking truth to power allows flexibility. It allows you to hold two diametrically opposed thoughts in your head at the same time while accepting both of them as true. This is psychotic.
Principles are unwavering. They are based on fundamental truths. They do not oppose one another and require no mental gymnastics to justify.
.... And That Is The Diatribe....
Principles are unwavering. They are based on fundamental truths. They do not oppose one another and require no mental gymnastics to justify.
.... And That Is The Diatribe....
No comments:
Post a Comment