Comments on the Post: Acquire the Ability to Enlighten
Posted by mminnick 5 years, 8 months ago to Philosophy
I returned to the site and clicked on the following link;
https://www.breathefreeprinciples.org...
There I read the Principles. I have a few comments on them.
Comment 1: Principle 2: Good is what results from mutually beneficial interactions. Performing mutually beneficial acts does not necessarily produce good. Two thieves perform mutually beneficial acts and good does not result from this.The houHe and Senate perform mutually beneficial acts and good does not always come from this.
Comment 2: Principle 3: Government should act as the referee in the game of life, not a player and not a coach. Government should not act as a referee. A referee applies rules and regulations to the situation. They apply the laws developed by people. They need to stay out of the referee business and stick to the ideas set forth in the preamble to the constitution.
Comment 3: Principle 5: Actual creation of wealth comes first - before consumption, taxes, charity, investment, etc. Wealth cannot be created without some form of effort/investment prior to its creation. If you don’t have “startup capital” you don’t start. You need an idea and the effort to bring the idea to fruition then wealth can be created. Wealth creation is the result of actions. It does not happen out of nothing.
Comment 4: Principle 6: Daily Bread - provide rudimentary basics to all citizens. If you mean that every citizen should have access to the means of getting daily bread I agree. If you mean that all citizens should be guaranteed their daily bread, I don’t. Education should not be denied anyone, access to food should not be denied. But these are not provided free, they are earned.
Comment 5: Principle 8: Simplifying our laws and legal processes, by itself, will result in a more just society. Simply making the legal system simpler will not in and of itself make the legal system more just. “The “Eye for Eye..” approach is simple, but not always just. The laws themselves must be just Justice and what is just is one of the most complicate aspects of society and in deed all of human life. In simplification we must not over simplify to the point of absurdity.
I will continue to examine the site and its Principles and supporting principles. As I have additional comments I’ll post them.
https://www.breathefreeprinciples.org...
There I read the Principles. I have a few comments on them.
Comment 1: Principle 2: Good is what results from mutually beneficial interactions. Performing mutually beneficial acts does not necessarily produce good. Two thieves perform mutually beneficial acts and good does not result from this.The houHe and Senate perform mutually beneficial acts and good does not always come from this.
Comment 2: Principle 3: Government should act as the referee in the game of life, not a player and not a coach. Government should not act as a referee. A referee applies rules and regulations to the situation. They apply the laws developed by people. They need to stay out of the referee business and stick to the ideas set forth in the preamble to the constitution.
Comment 3: Principle 5: Actual creation of wealth comes first - before consumption, taxes, charity, investment, etc. Wealth cannot be created without some form of effort/investment prior to its creation. If you don’t have “startup capital” you don’t start. You need an idea and the effort to bring the idea to fruition then wealth can be created. Wealth creation is the result of actions. It does not happen out of nothing.
Comment 4: Principle 6: Daily Bread - provide rudimentary basics to all citizens. If you mean that every citizen should have access to the means of getting daily bread I agree. If you mean that all citizens should be guaranteed their daily bread, I don’t. Education should not be denied anyone, access to food should not be denied. But these are not provided free, they are earned.
Comment 5: Principle 8: Simplifying our laws and legal processes, by itself, will result in a more just society. Simply making the legal system simpler will not in and of itself make the legal system more just. “The “Eye for Eye..” approach is simple, but not always just. The laws themselves must be just Justice and what is just is one of the most complicate aspects of society and in deed all of human life. In simplification we must not over simplify to the point of absurdity.
I will continue to examine the site and its Principles and supporting principles. As I have additional comments I’ll post them.
The accompanying book has the answers to the things you note. I will attempt a short version, which necessarily will be incomplete.
Principle 2: Two thieves stealing from you would most certainly not be mutually beneficial. You don't benefit. That is crime.
Principle 3: I think you have the same sentiment as I espouse. Semantics as to how it is said. Referee is a concept that the common man can relate to. They know that the referee is not there to play the game. The referee is supposed to try to ensure a fair game and allow the winners to win. If you want less intrusive government, then you need terms that people can understand.
Principle 5: Your comment is true. There is a circle - chicken vs egg. The principle is stated as a refutation of the current popular notion that wealth exists all of its own and therefore is there to be redistributed. Reminding people of the basic truth that wealth creation is the result of actions is an important starting point. No discussion of using wealth thus created should be discussed without an acknowledgement of this truth.
Principle 6: This one will be contentious, especially on this site. No need for 100% agreement. One example given in the book is in regards to criminals. We give the rudiments of life to someone who commits a hideous crime yet do not do so for someone who does not commit a crime.
The driver for the Principle is actually efficiency. The multitude of "assistance" programs are not going away. Far better to implement them directly to all rather than the current situation. The basis being: give what is given to criminals to non-criminals. Not as a Right but as a more efficient means of distribution. (A practical principle rather than an idealistic principle.) Hundreds of Billions of $ would be saved.
Principle 8: Your comment is of course true that there needs to be a balance. Currently the situation is far unbalanced to the side of complexity for the sake of complexity and confusion. This leads or even causes injustice. If the common man is unsure of what the laws are, then resentment and injustice prevails.
With way too many parasites on my payroll already, I come up short of fully taking care of myself in the proper manner in order to perpetuate my own survival...not to mention happiness.
Regarding 6: Wouldn't it be better to have less taken from your payroll to achieve the same results that you object to? Your ideal is NO handouts. But that is a pipedream in our current state of affairs. So, if compromise is to be, then at least implement in an efficient manner with the least waste as possible.
And, I doubt that you truly mean NO handouts, such that criminals are left to starve to death. Would you agree that it is not an all or nothing choice, in practical actual life?
That was a foundational idea at our founding. The only "central" figures involved would be the family unit...the smallest most important governmental unit...we work our way up from there to the least important...the federal government.
Not sure about the other principles...kind of busy today resetting anything electronic at CT hospice, due to yesterdays ionospheric. disturbances.