Hey DU!! What is/are YOUR most important principle(s)? (I'm listening to YOU)

[Land Shark]

Once again, opposition to Holt's proposed bill for elections in 2009 is described by some as "absolutist" or "idealist." I'm delighted, in this context of our rights to vote and
rights in democracy, to be called or identified with these terms. It puts me in decent company (see quotes below).

But I've got far bigger things to discusss in this OP, believe it or not. I'd prefer to avoid the Holt bill, in deference to the larger issues/ideals/principles I'd like to be informed of BY YOU in the replies to this thread.

A little background on why it's so important not to compromise on one's HIGHEST ideals (as opposed to lesser subjects):

Ideals are but principles. One example of an ideal is to be honest.
We may never fully achieve that ideal of honestly constantly through
our whole life but, on the other hand, to abandon honesty as a
goal-ideal is to steer directly to disaster. Not to be an
"absolutist" about the ideal (even if we often fail in its
achievement) is to abandon the ideal. In the case of honesty that
means one becomes an INTENTIONAL LIAR, the worst kind. So it's a good
thing to be an "absolutist" about ideals, the question is which one's
are the most important such that they ought to be protected or
identified with in an absolute way?

There's been a clear distinction made by all great American thinkers,
leaders and politicians between compromise on smaller legislative
matters, and compromise on important principles. I'll leave it to
each reader to decide if the right that protects all other rights
(voting) is an important principle, or not. Again, this post is intended
to be "bigger" than even the sacred right to vote.

But, in any event, and on any subject, to make fun of, or to diminish in any way "idealists"
or "purists" and such, specifically in the area of core principles, is to
establish a position outside the mainstream of thought about
Anglo-American democracy in my opinion. As examples, let's try Thomas Paine, Lincoln,
Patrick Henry, Barry Goldwater, and these various others below on for size,
for it seems there's a great tension between compromise on usual legislation and compromise on high principle:

1. Thomas Paine: The architect of the American revolution and the
author of "Common Sense" wrote: "A thing moderately good is not so
good as it ought to be. Moderation in temper is always a virtue; but
moderation in principle is always a vice."

2. Abraham Lincoln: "Important principles may and must be inflexible."

3. {At the time of the Constitution} it was the application of
{compromise} to a question of fundamental morals that cost us our
Civil War. –James Russell Lowell

4. Patrick Henry: "Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be
purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almight God!
I know not what course others may take, but as for me: Give me
liberty, or give me death!"

5. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. (as to voting specifically): ""This is
no time to engage in the luxury of cooling off or to take the
tranquilizing drug of gradualism. Now is the time to make real the
promises of democracy."

6. John Adams: I agree with you that in politics the middle way is
none at all.

7. "I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no
vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of
justice is no virtue!" --Barry Goldwater, conservative

8. Lord Hailsham: "In a confrontation with the politics of power, the
soft centre has always melted away."

9. Jim Hightower: "There's nothing in the middle of the road but
yellow stripes and dead armadillos."

10. Shakespeare: "Compromise? "The damned use that word in hell."


11. Mark E. Smith: "If you don't consider yourself a leader, why
write? And if you do consider yourself a leader, capable of having an
impact on public opinion, why not aim for the best possible outcome?
Setting your sights lower than optimum, from the negativist standpoint
that we couldn't do better, isn't my idea of what good leaders do."

12. Robert Frost, poet: "The middle of the road is where the white
line is - and that's the worst place to drive."

13. "One should always remember that this freedom depends upon the
genuine, enduring, deep, and uncompromising commitment to one's country." Zbigniew
Brzezinski, National Security advisor

14. Mahatma Gandhi: ""The things that will destroy us are: politics
without principle…{mentioning three others as well, google the quote if you like}"

The above quotes are from both people I agree with and disagree with on other, lesser
subjects. But on the issue of compromising high ideals, we all agree. Shakespeare is perhaps a bit harsh when he says the damned use that defense of "compromise" and "non-absolutism" in Hell, but he does have a point when the issue is applied to high ideals.

I don't at the moment have the funds to send any one a Valentine heart via DU, but if I won the Lotto I'd send all of you one.

In lieu of that, and not asking anyone to send me one (though one anonymous benefactor already did prior to this post) I'd ask you to take some action toward your highest principle or ideal, and (whether you want me to, or not!) I'll consider THAT to be sending me a Valentine heart.

"Whatever you do unto the least of these, you do unto me."

Explaining one interpretation of the above biblical phrase, the link below says:

"By "me" Jesus did not mean the historical figure. He meant the Christ Energy, which is inherent in all people and all things and is another name for the Mystery." http://www.mayyoubehappy.com/uleofth.html

"Whatever you do unto the least of these, you do unto me."


That's such a beautiful saying. Because everything is a part of the whole, is the Whole itself in some mysterious way. Thus when we perform a kind or generous act toward any being whatsoever, we are doing it towards the Whole itself.

So, may I ask you to state your most important ideals/principles in response to this post? I promise that I will read/listen to them, and if you can also mention some action you are taking or will take toward that ideal or principle, even if imperfect, that would be a great way to send a Heart to someone else, to the whole World, and, I'm happy to report, that includes me (and You). One example: Donating to DU and spreading hearts of appreciation. But I'm sure DU as a whole has many other incredible principles and ideas and I'd love to hear some of them. I've indirectly indicated some of my own, but again, if you're a practicing atheist or don't consider Love a highest principle, I'd rather have you Teach me what is, than to tell me what Isn't.

In return for the respect of not quibbling with any minor points, I'll closely listen to what YOU have to say, and consider it seriously. Listening is certainly a form of respect, and some would say, Love.

With love,
Paul Lehto
Juris Doctor

[Ian David]

1. Never read anything over four paragraphs long. n/t

[Land Shark]

2. I'm thinking of applying that without compromise as a highest principle, and smiling. Thanks!

[Land Shark]

3. Corollary: ALWAYS post in response to things one hasn't read, if they're more than 4 paragraphs. :)

This is a great idea for a comedic movie, call it the Tower of Babel.

[Joe Chi Minh]

36. The post was quite witty, but that sounds like a somewhat wittier rejoinder. Touche!

[NC_Nurse]

4. A good compromise leaves everybody mad.

I like that saying, but I don't know where my husband heard it....:)

[Land Shark]

24. Hmmm. If I may throw Thomas Jefferson in between you and your husband? :)

THomas Jefferson: "In matters of style, swim with the currents. In matters of principle, stand like a rock."

As long as I'm potentially interfering in your marriage, may as well put the architect of the revolution Thomas Paine in for good measure, as a guide on where to "stand firm":

"It is necessary to the happiness of man that he be mentally faithful to himself. Infidelity does not consist in believing, or in disbelieving, it consists in professing to believe what he does not believe."

Downthread, I try to make clear that violations of ideals are not "compromises" of them, unless the ideal (or law, or principle) is REWRITTEN in one's mind or on the law books. Like Thomas Paine says, when that happens it's being "mentally unfaithful to one's self."

We MUST follow our highest purposes as we, in the exercise of our freedom, find them to be. This is true simply because the alternatives are either forms of slavery, (broadly speaking, which is exactly how the Founders defined slavery, as being subject to the will of another, not just southern "ownership" slavery) or being a parrot, a puppet, a vacuous idiot, etc.. ALl of these evils occur when we have no independent mind/soul of our own that we are being mentally faithful to, to the best of our independent abilities.

[Flying Dream Blues]

5. A beautiful post. Thanks for asking and listening!

I can't compromise on honesty or integrity in any area of life. Moderation of honesty and integrity for "the greater good" is a slippery slope and is probably the cause of the sickness that inhabits our current system. It's so easy to let the little compromises lead to bigger ones, especially when one's or one's family's comfort and security is involved.

In politics, I think we also need to be inflexible about the principle of service. When politics serves as a quick route to the gravy train, all the wrong people are involved. The concept of elective office as a service to the country and a sacrifice to oneself keeps people grounded and in touch with the people they serve.

This principle of service also means that the people, not special interest groups/lobbyists and certainly not corporations, are the top priority. If the people as a whole are considered FIRST and foremost, all of those groups should be well attended to.

Another ideal I have is one of social justice. We can't be proud of our country until everyone has full access to their civil rights as afforded by the Constitution. And speaking of the Constitution, if anything this last eight years has taught us that we surrender our civil liberties at our peril. And I also believe that however inconvenient and costly it may be, we have to enforce the law against those who break it or we have just invited someone else to do the same when given the opportunity. This is the best example of the corruption of moderation; after the whole Nixon debacle no one wants to enforce the law, so the infractions have only gotten worse and more blatant.

[Land Shark]

26. First of all, I love both your former and current DU Names!!

A looking glass is of course a mirror, and flying blue -- blue as a quote from St. Yves says, is the color of the invisible becoming visible. Both have tremendous metaphorical, allegorical, spiritual and religious associations and powers. Very rich. Good choices.

One thought, upon thinking upon your thoughts: whether in sacrificing to the greater good the sacrifice is voluntary or compelled seems a great difference, just as the difference between voluntary sacrifice and mandatory duty reflects a difference between free will and (in many cases of "duty" but certainly not all) choicelessness.

also, whether a sacrifice to "the greater good" is seen as unfair to the individual depends upon the individuals conception of his or her relation to society or the other people involved. Why do some soldiers fall on grenades to save the lives of buddies? Connection. Love. Something like that, taking the form of sacrifice or duty, depending on their thinking. Also, if one truly feels connected to All, then sacrificing to the greater good is at least EXPERIENCED as something other than loss. So, if it makes no difference to your mood or thoughts, there doesn't seem to be any harm in it. In fact, such sacrifice is often experience, even though to the "greater good" as an elevating experience, even a transcendent one, like the concept of service you articulate later.

But yes, I think your apprehension is well justified in those cases where 'greater good' is invoked, or "duty" or "sacrifice" in an atmosphere or reality of forcible compulsion as opposed to freely giving. And, informed consent of a sort needs to be present, so that, for example, victims of cult indoctrination don't "voluntarily" commit suicide.

perhaps Justice Steven Breyer in "Active Liberty" makes the point a bit clearer, connecting up some of your points about service with the greater good or the public good, when he uses a John Adams quote, as he does throughout the book, that speaks of a necessary "positive passion" for the public good, or the greater good. (Note: the "positive" passion I believe implies VOLUNTARY as opposed to negatively compelled duty):

We judges can not insist that Americans participate in government. But we can make it clear that our Constitution depends upon it. Their participation is necessary. It is a critical part of that "positive passion for public good" that John Adams, like so many others, believed was a necessary condition for any "real Liberty" and for the "Republican government" that the Constitution creates.

[The Straight Story]

6. Compromise is but a step on the ladder to getting what one really wants

Let's take a hot topic here as an example (and will add another): Smoking.

First it was "Just don't let it happen at work", then it became food joints, then bars, then condo's, then outdoors in parks/beaches, then outdoors where some bar owners wanted to have outdoor patios for it (drifts), then people began complaining about people standing out on the sidewalk smoking and having to walk past it (which to me says they should have just let like minded people congregate in a place that allows smoking...)

Same went down with seat belts. Was not going to be a primary offense. Then after awhile the next step was made. People went along with it when it was not primary offense, so they compromised.

Now before the anti-smokers come along and hijack the thread let me say that I only used that as but one example of a principle we see time and again.

Tell people you only want X (like we don't want to outlaw guns, just add more regulations) then after a time you add some more, until after awhile you get what you really wanted all along.

At least fundies on the right come right out and say what they want and go for it (and let's hope they keep losing on those issues). Nanny state people know they will get run out of town on a rail if they expose they main agenda of controlling people's lives and choices so they incrementally work towards their goal.

At some point - you stop compromising and make a stand on your principles.

We are a big tent and a melting pot, we need to value the variety of people and how they live instead of spending more and more time trying to get everyone following one gospel.

And don't even get me started on how many kids people should have, homeschooling, etc and so on.

Choice - it's worth defending even if it is not a choice I would make.

[2 Much Tribulation]

11. I agree that compromise CAN BE but one step. But we're talking exceptions like cutting baby in 1/2

in this post, as I understand it. But, oops, I should have identified your many good points instead of making one possible "correction." And you do say at some point you stop compromising and make a stand. The quandary or koan posted in the OP seems to be on what subjects does one not ever Start compromising.

Ok, here's one: Self-defense as against lethal force against me personally. That's one for me, but I know it isn't everyone's a few of the more committed pacifists would not defend themselves with force as against even lethal force. But that's THEIR choice, and I respect it, but my choice on what right or ideal never to waive starts with self-defense.

But it doesn't end there, with mere self-defense. I'll have to think more on this.

[kster]

31. 99 % of the people that go to bars both

smokers and non-smokers alike could give a shit about second hand smoke, thats a fact, the Anti-smokers have one mission to stop people from smoking, unfortunately they are able to bring some non-smokers who unwittingly defend their anti-smoking position, the anti's got it going on.

If a non-smoker would have asked any of the bars for a few smoke free days a month they would accommodate them, if there was a profit in it, they have would added more smoke free days a month.

Then the lawmakers and the antis could have all went to hell.

We have OSHA to protect employees, but yet there are many many states that allow smoking in taverns, so am I to conclude that OSHA is useless? I mean some states OSHA allows employees to work in bars that allow smoking and other states OSHA will not allow it,

I'm all kinds of confused about OSHA's role in all of this.


The Antis do not compromise thats why they continue to win state after state after state.

[Kurovski]

7. Time constraints...

so I'm unable to participate. But a "kick" & I already R'd you.

Good to see you, LandShark. :hug:

This is a very interesting thread. It's like stepping into a classroom.

I don't know if this is a principle, but where something of value needs to be protected, It's always important to think like a thief in order to cut them off at the pass, keep them out, or catch them.

Anything of great value will always have the worst elements attempting to steal or undermine it for their own aggrandizement, power, or greater wealth. And they will do it so as to not be caught. I repeat: the system will be set up so that they can, or can more easily get away with it.

Always.

[Trajan]

8. It is a bit long ....

But hell yeah : Defending HONEST voting is a virtue ... Whatever it takes to make it so, in time or money .... Make it so ....

[Kurovski]

9. I don't think it's so much long as it is packed with info and requires

careful--or a greater degree of thought.

That's why I make the classroom analogy. There's a lot here.

It really isn't too much longer than many posts.

[2 Much Tribulation]

10. We instinctively assign approx equal time to all posts, but some are worth more than others....

And we don't know whether or not that's true until we get into the post, perhaps until the very end of it (which we may never reach, or may skip to it). This is enhanced greatly by the "speed" of the internet age.

My highest principle: To look for the highest principle in every situation and follow that. Never compromise if at all possible.

We might judge a post not worth reading, missing the gem of insight that is there somewhere. Not everything of value is on the surface of things, served up in tiny sound bites for convenience. In fact, the more meaningful experiences in life are often the ones we have to actually struggle to achieve. Even a forest destination that one hikes to (and thus works to get to) is appreciated more than the equivalent destination one can drive right up to. no pain, no gain? Anticipation? i don't know. But I do know that food tests better out on the trail, that's for sure. Better than even after an intense workout in a gym that burns more calories. Why is that? I don't know, but I'm looking for the higher principle or meaning in that experience! :)

[robinlynne]

12. quite a question, this "what is your highest principle?"

a difficult one to answer quickly in the internet way. but I will say:
I agree wholeheartedly about the middle, which is why I did not support Obama's idea of sitting everyone at the table".
but I look forward to the possibility of being proven wrong about this particular example. I generally stick to my guns and don't compromise much, but sometimes admire those who do: Gandhi, my mother, martin Luther King, to name a few. (No they did not compromise their highest principles, Landshark.)
so the compromise thing is a bit tricky imho. There are two sides, and it does depend on exactly what you will compromise! I need to learn the art of compromise. and yes the perfect can be the enemy of the good. Conversely I do not think that putting bankers in charge of the Treasury department, or negotiating with republicans is going to get us anywhere. Same with the Holt bill, mentioned at the beginning. Voting has got to be sacred. It is the ONLY way we get to voice our opinions. This government which is supposed to represent us will never do so as long as elections are bought and sold and corrupted as they are today. Which they are.

"Not to be an absolutist about the ideal of honesty is to be a liar?" I think not, Landshark, but you saved it by saying you must be absolutist about only those most important ideals and goals. Again there are 2 ways of seeing things. Language does have those drawbacks. We are different people with different experiences. the word absolutist makes me cringe, and I see honesty as one of the most important moral commitments of my life, and yet I lie sometimes...

a core principle I am enjoying right now: kindness and caring. I am taking care of some abused dogs until they find homes. It has turned my house upside down, literally, and it is giving me tremendous joy in a moment when so many are being abandoned and have no way to fend for themselves.

[Land Shark]

21. Thanks millions for your example of action (last paragraph) robinlynne! It's a great one....

I think that ultimately you're not taking issue with the things you mention. Even if one lies, the very fact that one knows or acknowledges it at least internally to themselves as a lie means that they uphold the ideal (they just happen to violate that ideal, negligently or more likely at some modest level of intent like a white lie, or perhaps even a big deception....). Even when violated, the ideal still stands there kind of like a law of what we are shooting for, even if we don't get there.

ON EDIT: Whereas, with compromises in LAW/LEGISLATION we may well be modifying the Ideal ITSELF, which is a KEY difference.

I like to say ideals are like compasses and stars for mariners at sea, we will never reach the stars (achieve the ideals perfectly) but without the ideals we would be lost.

Example, without the ideal of honesty, if it were actually abandoned instead of just violated at some level, then we'd be pathological liars or sociopathic in some way.

There are also special cases where two equally important principles are in conflict, though often the conflict can be avoided, both sides can get what they want, and it's not a zero sum game with a winner and a loser. But it takes a lot of skill to untangle these sometimes.

In general, and for most if not everyone I know, what cannot be compromised is core human rights, basic human dignity, fundamental political rights like elections and self-government, commitment to the pursuit of happiness and/or love, the principle of self-defense, honesty, the golden rule, and some others I can't remember at this moment. :) Again, we may violate these rules individually or collecively, even on a daily or systematic basis, but they are the foundational requirements for a civilized society. As RULES, they can not be bent.

It's easy to say "Ok, it's ethical to lie to save a life if the gestapo is unjustly hunting down someone taking refuge in my house." But it's better to say or understand something more like the duty to tell the truth doesn't attach when it involves aiding and abetting murder. This way, we don't teach ourselves that lying is ok or that principles constantly conflict, but instead we realize that some of the details of the principles we're just a little fuzzy on.

Get some clarity on those principles (as you've clearly got clarity with regard to animals) and watch how wonderful and loving people become. This is an interesting post for me to read the responses on, thanks robinlynne!

[robinlynne]

27. ahhh the gestapo. But in the day to day: I do not tell mother she has alzheimer's

even though that is the truth because it would not help her to cope. And, sometimes I pretend I am not home and do not answer the phone when I don't feel like talking to anyone. These are not lies to protect someone from the gestapo. They are just lies. The question is that word absolutist you started the paragraph with. As you know, I do not like liars at all. I hate hypocrisy. I can't imagine a sit-down with a Republican, really. And yet sometimes I lie. I am not an absolutist. Yes the ideal still stands....

[robinlynne]

38. ahh. just read the upthread link. Yes. absolutely. you have defined the fine line.

(if you change what you believe, you have crossed the line.) well said.

[Land Shark]

39. You're a determined and capable debater, so that's generous high praise. Thanks!! nt

[robinlynne]

40. Thank-you for the capable debater! (determined was a given...)

I think that line you cited from Thomas Paine is the crux of the question.

[Land Shark]

25. Dear Robinlynne, perhaps this link upthread makes my response more clear

to distinguish failures to achieve an ideal like honesty (by lying) from rewriting the ideals themselves, or rewriting the law (which often forms some ideals for us on pain of punishment that are not voluntarily adopted by all, thus law is force....)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=5060031&mesg_id=5061776

[bridgit]

13. k&r'd, Land Shark, and thanks for the heads up...

I differentiate between 'the center' and a state of balance and it seems to cause great confusion around here so I'll say here quickly that I do agree...that after these last 8~12+ years and counting; republican have removed 'the center' from all consideration. And while I appreciate what-all Obama tried to do with his *hands across the water* bit, we owe republican a dozen wilted flowers for their having done so in that we certainly at least in my opinion do not have to waste any more energies trying to seek or compromise with some mythological center cause it ain't there no more. They lived & governed by the sword of Ayn Rand then they not-live and be rendered unfit to govern by the sword of Ayn Rand. Leaving here with a passage from Jesus - International Standard Version (©2008)

"Since you are lukewarm and neither hot nor cold, I am going to spit you out of my mouth."

Thank you republicans, for showing your colors after all in the course of rendering yourselves into the dust bin of American history with your gibberish :kick:

[Land Shark]

18. This has made me think more broadly, and yes, even R's have cited "philosophical incompatibility" as

THEIR supposed reason for wholesale opposing the bill. In reality, they probably just want a clearcut 2010 campaign issue to blame Democrats for since the Bush mess of many years won't be fixed in 22 months or less from now, in all likelihood.

Nevertheless, the cited incompatibility of philosophy is a colorable/rational/reasonable reason not to compromise and simply to oppose a bill. THe real question in this context is one of good faith and whether the principles are really that dearly held and core that they admit of no compromise, which in the case of the republicans is doubtful it seems.

[Kip Humphrey]

14. I don't want good compromises. I want good solutions.

[Land Shark]

16. Hmmm. Thanks. That's insightful, even after writing the OP. Cheers! nt

[agent46]

15. There are three rules I live by:

1. Never get less than twelve hours sleep.
2. Never play cards with a guy who has the same first name as a city.
3. Never get involved with a woman with a tattoo of a dagger somewhere on her body.

Stick to that and everything else is cream cheese.
:beer:

[bridgit]

17. hahahaha, I like #2: "Honey, I'm off to play poker with Reno, Folsom & Boot Hill wish me luck!"

:spray:

[agent46]

33. You're doomed

But good luck anyway!
:hi:

[Land Shark]

19. Because I'm committed to listening and taking seriously the responses, I conclude that

one principle, perhaps the key principle you will not compromise on is the importance of humor at all times. LIke Reagan's joke to the doctors after being shot, if you can keep this principle without compromise, it is a remarkable and even noble achievement. (Well, as long as it isn't focused on belittling others, which I don't take your post as doing)

[agent46]

34. Bravo!

You are the keymaster!
:toast:

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

20. "In matters of conscience, the law of majority has no place." Gandhi

"Freedom is the absolute right of all adult men and women to seek permission for their actions only from their own conscience and reason, and to be determined in their actions only by their own will, and consequently to be responsible only to themselves, and then to the society to which they belong, but only insofar as they have made a free decision to belong to it." Mikhail Bakunin

"All I ask is equal freedom. When it is denied, as it always is, I take it anyhow." H.L. Mencken

"Freedom is the right to one's dignity as a man." - Unknown

"I know of but one freedom and that is the freedom of the mind." Antoine de Sainte Exupery

[Land Shark]

23. Are these principles that you will not compromise on (won't re-write them) even if you don't always

live up to them?

No matter what, thanks for the quotes, very interesting ones!

[agent46]

35. These are extraordinary thoughts

Thanks for posting them. Isn't it amazing how we can live according certain core beliefs, even for most of our lives, and yet not have articulated them to ourselves or others. And then we come across the statements of great thinkers like these. Suddenly focus and clarity come because someone has made the effort to articulate the principle(s) we have held to be true and yet never spoken. This is an important thread. Thanks All!

[BlooInBloo]

22. 1) Truth....

That is all.

[Land Shark]

28. oh, but that is nearly EVERYTHING as well. especialy when you capitalize that T in Truth! :) nt

[BlooInBloo]

29. (shrug) Details.

:P

[Land Shark]

30. But they're all Good Details! :) nt

[taught_me_patience]

32. All men are created equal.

I cant compromise on that principle.

[Land Shark]

37. Agreed, so long as the original understanding of "man" as including both sexes is implied.=. nt