Part three on principles: Freedom's just another word for get your hand out of my pocket

Main Entry:

prin·ci·ple

Pronunciation:

\ˈprin(t)-s(ə-)pəl, -sə-bəl\

Function:

noun

Etymology:

Middle English, from Middle French principe, principle, from Old French, from Latin principium beginning, from princip-, princeps initiator — more at prince

Date:

14th century

1 a: a comprehensive and fundamental law, doctrine, or assumption b (1): a rule or code of conduct (2): habitual devotion to right principles principle> c: the laws or facts of nature underlying the working of an artificial device2: a primary source : origin3 a: an underlying faculty or endowment principles of human nature as greed and curiosity> b: an ingredient (as a chemical) that exhibits or imparts a characteristic quality4capitalized Christian Science : a divine principle : god

— in principle

: with respect to fundamentals in principle>

usage Although nearly every handbook and many dictionaries warn against confusing principle and principal, many people still do. Principle is only a noun; principal is both adjective and noun. If you are unsure which noun you want, read the definitions in this dictionary.

 

From Merriam-Webster

 

Let's say fundamental rules of conduct, the ideology that guides action, and let's say the rules are based on years of consideration and experience as to the best course to take in all situations relating to virtues utilized in choices and the decision-making process. These virtues have been time-tested and have proved to be the right way for mature, responsible people to address situations, because, long term, they have the most beneficial outcomes for relationships as we co-operate in a civil society. Aside from all Machiavellian actions that pragmatically are effective in producing desired short-term results, how do we act in the best ways to ensure confidence, trust, fellowship, co-operation, peace, fairness, honesty, fidelity, honor and such knowing that we are all in this together as we move forward in society?

 

In relation to our nation, principles originated from the people who began the nation, then later they created a government. The founders believed in a limited government designed to protect individual rights and the nation from foreign attack and to settle disputes in courts of law. One principle they stood on was freedom from establishment of a state religion -- the fundamental rule of conduct was freedom of religion -- you have the right to worship your God as you see fit, or to not believe in a god. The state has no right to establish a religion and mandate that you accept that religion.

 

The rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness were recognized and government was designed to protect these rights, along with the right to own property. Without the right to own property, the other rights are meaningless. Government was deemed necessary to ensure that property could not be taken through force by others. The principle of ownership is a very important principle. I own my life and mind and the material possessions I produce or legally acquire through contractual agreement or mutual consent free from coercion. The point is that our nation's government was created on principles -- principles we demanded adherence to or else we would disband the government.

 

One of the main reasons people in America wanted a new nation and new government is taxation without representation. We now have taxation without representation. We have an unprincipled government taking our money and not representing our best interests in all their actions. Yes, the government is providing a police force and a military and courts, but in major actions, after years of taking on more and power than they were meant to have, they are taking what is ours, money that represents our labor, and using it unwisely, in ways of which many disapprove. This is unjust. They take the money by force, which is criminal. When I say "our money" I mean ours literally and then figuratively all those who come after us -- the debt is growing at a ridiculous rate.

 

We have no one to blame but ourselves because we've allowed the government to grow to this state. But what we've done in the past can't be changed. What can be changed is what we do going forward. And this is only partially true -- "we" doesn't include all the people who disapprove of what government has been doing yet have no power to change it. This is the problem. Goverment began growing out of control before most of us were born, gaining powers of coercion that now prevent a minority of dissenters to make any significant changes. The majority has either been blind or asked for more and more from the government, forgetting the principles that made this nation special in a world ruled by despots, kings and madmen.

 

This is the reason we need limited government, so that the minority doesn't have to suffer over the ignorance of the majority. There is no special enlightenment in large groups of people who claim their uniqueness or claim they know best how we all should live - the uniqueness and special nature is the rule of law rather than the rule of men -- a set of principles that are not violated just because enough people feel like they need to violate them -- a set of prinicples that apply as much to presidents and elected representatives as to private citizens. "Don't let principles get in the way of doing the right thing?" My God, how lost are we? Principles are the only way we can ensure doing the right thing! It was lack of principles that caused the mess -- moving away from the rule of law to the rule of men -- flawed men and women who don't have the capacity, wisdom, knowledge or character to "rule" -- no one has. The laws of a limited government are designed to prevent this. The laws made by men and women ruling above the law are rigged and unjust, corrupted and doomed to failure.

 

I, personally, never asked for or consented to what we now have. It can be argued whether the rule of law with limited government is better for society than the rule of men with a statist government, or vice versa, but if history is any indication, I'll consent to rule of law, not to what we have. If you care about freedom and protection of individual rights, then you'll come to the same conclusion. If not, then be ruled by flawed men and women intoxicated by power who confiscate the product of your labor, be a slave if you wish, praise your masters and hold out your hand, just don't expect all those who still stand by principles to roll over and say -- Whatev.