Prinsipper

Diskusjon om psykologi, epistemologi og metafysikk (fri vilje, begrepsdannelse, o.l.).

Prinsipper

Innlegg Panther 20 Apr 2011, 14:13

http://www.capitalismmagazine.com/politics/6386-no-principles-no-credibility.html

No Principles? No Credibility
19 April 2011 Michael Hurd

The debate underlying all of our current political disputes does not involve numbers or budgets. The debate is really philosophical.


Let's say the other side refused to compromise. Imagine they said, "No way. Not one penny more. And you have to cut back on the existing size and expense of government. We'll negotiate with you on that, but that's all." This is what the right side of an issue has to do. Don't compromise on principle. If your principle is that government is too big, then you should never cave an inch when it's demanded that you expand the government; you should only be willing to cut government -- to actually cut government, not play numbers games on paper that make it look like you're doing so when you're actually doing no such thing.
Ken-G. Johansen.
Brukerens avatar
Panther
 
Innlegg: 885
Registrert: 06 Aug 2005, 17:12
Bosted: Lørenskog

Re: Prinsipper

Innlegg Markus 25 Apr 2011, 20:19

Hvis en objektiv rettferdighet faktisk finnes, vil den alltid være lik i situasjoner som er identiske. Derfor følger jeg prinsipper. Prinsippene blir mest sannsynlig sett på som urettferdige, men de er i alle fall konsekvente. De er like uansett hvem det er snakk om. De påvirkes ikke av trynefaktor eller lignende. De bruker aldri skjønn. Jeg synes det er negativt når folk vil at politiet skal gjøre unntak.
Markus
 
Innlegg: 4
Registrert: 24 Apr 2011, 19:10

Why Compromising on Principles is Stupid

Innlegg Panther 05 Aug 2011, 08:22

http://www.capitalismmagazine.com/politics/6526-why-compromising-on-principles-is-stupid.html

2 August 2011 Michael Hurd

The Tea Party, while not always coherent or consistent, at least brings a sense of principle to what used to be entirely one-sided debates in Washington D.C. This is quite clearly driving mainstream Republicans and all Democrats insane.

The liberal left and establishment right keep complaining that the Tea Party "doesn't understand compromise" or isn't "willing to compromise."

This immediately raises the question: Compromise WHAT, exactly?

A compromise, in or out of politics, refers to a deal between two people who already agree on fundamental principle. For example, a married coupling squabbling over finances comes to a compromise. One wants to budget $1000 for a vacation, the other wants to budget $5000. They agree to $3000. Neither questions the desire and need for a vacation; neither suggests spending the money on something else. Neither is suggesting getting divorced over it.

There are many things that married couples can compromise on, but there are things not subject to compromise, as well. For example, a married spouse wanting monogamy -- as most married spouses do -- won't agree to an open relationship. That's a fundamental difference in principle not subject to compromise. It's a deal breaker, when the two partners disagree.
Ken-G. Johansen.
Brukerens avatar
Panther
 
Innlegg: 885
Registrert: 06 Aug 2005, 17:12
Bosted: Lørenskog


Gå til Grunnleggende ideer

Hvem er i forumet

Brukere som leser i dette forumet: Ingen registrerte brukere og 2 gjester

cron