NCFRR Input 3 ~ Basic Principles

Posted by Buck68 on December 1st, 2010 filed in Uncategorized

Third in an indefinite series of… asking.

It has been 3 weeks since I first wrote to the National Commission of Fiscal Responsibility and Reform [NCFRR], and 2 weeks since my second email. No acknowledgment of receipt, or reply, as yet. But, I looked up “unsustainable” in the dictionary and that word means “we can’t keep doing this”. Since we are [see url]… I write again.
this sent first to:

Today NCFRR members are meeting with Congress to advocate several spending cuts. In the billions, one leader’s “drop in the bucket” is another leader’s “place to start”. Meanwhile, one judge’s interpretation of Health Care Reform says Congress can impose increasing trilliions of more unsustainable debt, and another says different. So, as demonstrated in daily events, advocacies continue unabated, while e pluribus unum principles are but a distant Facade*…graduating to Blind Spot* in our National Rear View Mirror.

A simple analogy of our “Unsustainable Debt” to arithmetic: if you do not know the rules for arithmetic, you become unable to use the process of algebra, and every mathematical process based on…arithmetic principle. Now, as any child knows, if you keep adding, the sum keeps growing…no matter how you feel, think, or say about it. To the elementary kid it’s … self-evident. It is only as you ‘progress’ to adult and bigger leader…that you become intentionally deceptive even to the point you can no longer add even in secret.

So, while “way behind” in the daily advocacies of all the right and smarter people…are We The People ‘behind’…or yet in front of…our government? I’m asking.

So, having discussed [part 1] our common condition, and defined the elements and process of communication in order to enable the citizen’s common responsibility of e pluribus unum [part 2], we are able to illustrate why the current NCFRR’s “principles” [their values and guidance derived therefrom] are entirely inadequate to proceed rationally due to their irrational and conflicted meanings.

Practically, this leaves us in the company of the many, who leave or blame after graciously imputing their negatives of ‘what won’t work’. This Part 3 therefore provides suggestions about what could or will work…to solve the “unsustainable” that all of us AND the term itself suggest is…our common situation…at least part of our problem.

Specifically, our principle problem about our unsustainable problem is that we lack principle criteria and assumptions by which to rationally proceed beyond ‘brainstorming’ or ‘feelings’ to qualify and prioritize the information we gather. Rationally, following the Problem Solving Process**, one cannot form Hypotheses, let alone test them, absent the criteria required to qualify them and form them by reasoning using data qualified as ‘relevant information’.
So, in short, what are fundamental [common] principles, as ‘too many’ and/or ‘the wrong principles’ will, like wrong arithmetic knowledge, hopelessly ‘disadvantage’ our further pursuit of more complex…math [reason], which is essential to communicate AND essential to problem-solving?

1-Communication. [as previously defined and principled]. The philosophical term for this kind of communication is “discourse”, where the common purpose is to pursue right, truth, and knowledge for the common good.

2-The Creator is the Founding and Ultimate Authority for the United States. It is essential for ‘religious freedom’ as well as freedom itself to recognize the ultimate rational basis for our independence, individual freedom, and law…in order to “establish justice”. Is it necessary to personally ‘believe in’ this named Creator? No. Is it necessary to acknowledge that every liberty, law, and unlawful behavior in America is predicated on this Creator? Yes. For, if one does not acknowledge the Authority for a standard, then one does not recognize the responsibility to establish, preserve protect defend, or follow that standard. In other words, no Creator [ulitmate authority], no obligation to follow anything derived from this Creator. In other words…DIE-versity, where whoever follows whatever he feels like. Practically, absent a Higher Authority, we are left to the devices of men…where Science describes our condition as “survival of the fittest”. Yes, now some scientists are ‘discovering’ that we could condition our selves to some kind of ‘selflessness’ or ‘charity’. Of course we could. All ‘we’ would have to do is the same thing we are doing for any Government Program to “Help”…replace individual liberty with imposed standards and measures for ‘helping’.

3-Expressed Powers. The founders named and set this founding principle in government, predicated on human history and human nature…AND this Creator’s characterization of individuals and groups. It was not a limit on individual freedom, but a precise limit [by express rational box] on humans using government to gain power. They therefore required a very difficult process [Constitutional Amendment] to change government. Why? Because ‘naturally’, by definition, adversaries and special people and special groups…keep trying to ‘get more’…and whenever they do so via government, that starts and enables further ‘progress’ towards … tyranny. Observe that ALL the Amendments are… restrictions or protections… based on past actual and/or perceived ABUSES using government, of what this Creator had already “endowed” each human being.

4-Stare Decisis [legal] and Reform [political]. These two terms are practical principles… of human nature. They are anathema to individual liberty because they legitimize and popularize… regression. Why? Simply, do the math. An imperfection [the state of anything human] times an imperfection [each succeeding interpretation of the first imperfection] always produces… more imperfection. If you will, the fact of multiplying rationally proves for a ‘fact’ “beyond reasonable doubt to a moral certainty” that hundreds of years of the cherished legalized slippery slope is… an unendingly increasingly steeper downward …slope…until you approach complete regression [zero]…at which point further regression becomes more meaningless. Contrast this simple, factual math with other cherished ‘ideas’ of men such as… Progress …and Evolution. So far this princple is discussed in the usual negative. What is the positive form of this Principle? I don’t know on my authority, but. But, how about “moral” since the principle of US legal conviction stands or falls on “to a moral certainty”? Not man’s morals [an oxymoron]…but the Creator’s morals [since this Creator is our first and ultimate Founding Principle].

5-Renewal. The process that replaces our current Regressions in our adversarial system and congressional law-passing process. Two essential aspects of Renewal: moral, and literal following of the original source document. The moral here – term it honesty – is the same one that is essential to ‘communication’ [discourse] as compared to such popular forms ‘getting my way’ as “debating”, “polling”, or the all-time favorite, “being right in my own mind” so “my ends justify my means”. The literal part of Renewal requires return to the Constitution [as amended] and use of ONLY the Constitution to seek “justice” in each individual case. This greatly simplified process would produce… entirely radical …Renewal. First, each case requires reconsideration of the contents of our Constitution …it renews “keeping our Republic” as compared to the stare decisis process of “find whatever someone else interpreted that benefits ME and use it against my adversary to win.” That process is just exactly what law schools teach: ‘we have an Adversarial System’. Just as plainly, it rationally and morally contradicts every single purpose stated in the Preamble to the Constitution. It is anathema to the purpose, “establish justice”. Now of course, ‘everybody has been doing it’ since…the second court case ever. Which tends to prove several points. A-repetition or popularity does not make ‘right’; right is a universal, moral, ‘ought’. B-“But he did it too; or, he got it” makes immoral presumptions about justice, e.g. ‘if he got away with it, i should too’, ‘two wrongs make a right’, and forms of revenge or getting even. C-Establish Justice is ever a work in …each case. So, to make each case regressive by diverging interpretations based on…whatever as compared to the original source document is … inherently as ‘naturally desirable’ in terms of self interest as it is destructive to …Constitution. Such moral and rational regressions – especially the nice sounding and feeling ones – are the very means of “unusually accomplished liars”. Practically, in order to ‘keep our Republic’ … we must live, practice, contend, seek justice from it…every day …each legal case …every act of government. And OF COURSE that is…very unpopular. I’d much rather get my way…because i can or by getting someone else to do it for me.

6. Set the Example. This is stolen from leadership and management class decades ago. And, from any nook and cranny of every human group about what makes a …good …leader. Implicit in this Principle is that no leader who’s purpose or intention is to serve, ought to [morally and materially] get or receive any ‘special treatment’ or benefit of any kind, by omission or commission, compared to any ordinary… citizen. This principle is the Active Agent of ‘establish justice’ for any person who would ‘lead’ in any government position. Now presently, our fearless leaders are considering a 2 year ‘freeze’ on bits of their ‘compensation’. And no doubt we are all impressed by that 1789 amendment that finally became the 27th in…1992. Such tokens, and such longevity do indeed ‘set the example’…of why this example ought to be ‘first in the hearts’ of government servants. I.E. a disqualifier from any government “service”. Do you set an example for your family, or your friends, or your fellow citizens, by ‘doing something to serve’ or ‘doing a couple sacrifices’? Do you set the example, by ‘some’? Are you good if you do a couple good things? Or, by definition, does ‘service’ means ZERO advantages or benefits above any ordinary citizen? BUT WAIT, you & I say! If you did THAT…NOBODY would want to ‘join up’ to ‘serve’! Hmmm. Maybe then, only ‘nobodies’ would ‘serve’ …rather than any person who felt he was ‘special’. And then, We The People would have… a much much smaller and more frugal government …of …servants. Like… it says in plain English: government service. In other words, your government wouldn’t be at all like it works today. Domestically, It would be like… that local human service agency that depends on the good will of its voluntary contributors … and feeds, clothes, and helps many …and whose workers know which individual ‘really needs WHAT, WHY’ and which is… doing what comes naturally.

7-The Source. Do we need ‘more’ principles? Or…do we need where to go to seek …common …essential …principles? Like going to that massive library… or googling on the internet. Do we need to know the book, the website… The Source? Or, do we all, essentially…need to learn the basics of where to look and how to seek? Obviously, if we are not willing to consider the basics of learning and seeking… whatever we receive… is entirely dependent on …something or someone else. That describes passive… Random Determinism – the human expert, fact-based Progress of Evolution. The Amazing Brilliance of dis – covering …a piece, and through a glass dimly, of the infinite already given.

Curiously, compare this modern, advanced Foundation to … our founding documents. It does explain, in principle and practice …how a minority stuck their necks way out into an Experiment in 1789 …and it ‘progressed’ into the modern, socially empathetic, greatest nation ever Exceptional Situation we’ve all unsustainably hung ourselves on today …that is totally, honestly, actually, really …’their fault’. The endurance of that Experiment depended on enough individuals accepting responsibility. The charades of Exceptionalism depend on manipulating to get more power, while blaming others for …whatever.

~Notes on asterisked items
*Johari Window terms [google for more info]
**Simplified Problem Solving Process steps: 1-Identify the Problem, 2-Gather data, 3-Identify criteria & assumptions [factors bearing on the problem], 4-construct & test hypotheses, 5-determine the best solution

One Response to “NCFRR Input 3 ~ Basic Principles”

  1. Mel Maravilla Says:

    I believe this internet site has got some really wonderful info for everyone : D.

Leave a Comment