[Best Of: Politics] On Compromising
Posted by JCLanier 9 years, 10 months ago to The Gulch: Best of
A well stated warning on the evils of compromise.
- Hot
- New
- Categories...
- Producer's Lounge
- Producer's Vault
- The Gulch: Live! (New)
- Ask the Gulch!
- Going Galt
- Books
- Business
- Classifieds
- Culture
- Economics
- Education
- Entertainment
- Government
- History
- Humor
- Legislation
- Movies
- News
- Philosophy
- Pics
- Politics
- Science
- Technology
- Video
- The Gulch: Best of
- The Gulch: Bugs
- The Gulch: Feature Requests
- The Gulch: Featured Producers
- The Gulch: General
- The Gulch: Introductions
- The Gulch: Local
- The Gulch: Promotions
- Marketplace
- Members
- Store
- More...
I was listing the following by -johnpe1:
"yes. . if I compromise today, and then again tomorrow,
the remaining values available for compromise are
chewed to 25 percent. . then, if I compromise again,
it's 12.5 percent. . and in a few more "exchanges"
we become valueless. -- j "
I would look for a belief in the Constitution and it's built in ability to make change legally and peacefully,
I would look for people who were four square on the side of citizens controlling government as a right and a responsibility.
I would look for the ability and willingness to make some widening to the left or the right. To the left that would mean recognizing the need for some government with specifically stated but temporary powers. To the right I would look for the belief in useful tools such as recall on all levels, term, the initiative process, a change from the fascist income tax to the non fascist end consumer consumption tax. the belief in and willingness to use all forms of voting such as regular ballots, voting a law up or done in the jury box, no conscription into the military or any other form of government service, banning political contributions of any kind to any entity that cannot vote and limiting the contributions collected to the precinct, district, state or nation in which collected in that the funds could not be spent outside of that geo- political area. An honest voting act which included None Of The Above.
That sort of thing.
But a coalition of similar thinkers and believers operating at the grass roots level who turned their back on the Government Party should attract a number of the disenfranchised, and those from Libertarians to the Non-Rinos. That party can be pared away to some extent and with a great deal of care.
Trick is don't let the infiltrators destroy it as they did the Populists and that ;was Republican driven. Don't let the infiltrators swerve from purpose and never give them any form of support.
Just a few of the ideas for what I think of as a constitutional centrist coalition made up of some disparate, fragmented other party's who are not asked to give up their beliefs.
But first make damn sure you know where the center is and your own sacred ground and it's not the Center of the Left as at present.
As you state, and I paraphrase, each of us must recognize our own center and be grounded in our values to be able to hold steadfast to what we believe.
I agree with you that a coalition of individuals intent on giving and receiving like value for their efforts would indeed succeed.
At that point with all listed for all to see they look for common core beliefs, common secondary and those areas where they each stand alone.
Each group has decided what is core, what is secondary and what is tertiary that being somethings that can be modified and even put off, Secondary is modifed maybe not put off and core is searched for ways to express the same thoughts in a common language. Perhaps that's all that is needed. Some will leave but feel a kinship for the effort afforded them. Some will stay and each keeping their own belief system and values look for common ground and sacred ground. Use that religiously or in a secular sense.
The idea is to build a common platform with similar planks, a solid core structure but allow for freedom of thought and movement. it's a coalition not a single party
Then comes goal setting and plans of action. All the rest. Politics is the art of the possible. Treating with the Government party even in definitions is not possible at least not probable.
No sense wasting time and effort on them and with that I marginalized their whole game.
But supper is ready so I'll leave you with that. Because the whole idea IS to navigate the middle ground and then the deep oceans
Back to History and Moral Philosophy....and of course Objectivism or any of the other valid tools. Moral Philsophy of course will support or cause you to rethink your own personal belief system. It's very personal. You are the only critic.
The curse we must avoid is something, anything that fits Lenin''s description of Marxist Economics. He stated that one cannot teach it one has to preach it meaning it can't be explained instead tell congregation to accept it on faith - there are those who understand it and they will lead the way. Another way of saying if I have to explain it you wouldn't understand. In short an insult to the individual man or woman capable of critical thinking and reasoning.
That last sentence is not acceptable to the party chieftains of the left It is their weak point and there is nothing they can do about it.
Independent thinkers do not make proper servants of the left. But it's perfectly all right to navigate your own boat towards your own landfall. Many boat designs and with common parts.
It’s time to break that cycle and try something new. The Win-Win
Free-Market Stateless Society.
The second compromise comes from the other party, and so on. In addition, success in outcome of a compromise often compels the other party to reassess the root thinking, and the series need not be endless.
Here is a personal example;
1 - It takes 4 months to design a circuit board.
2 - It should be much less than that.
1 - Never was.
2 - Maybe our resources are inefficient (or incompetent).
1 - don't think so.
2 - Tell you what, we'll start the design internally, and at the same time hire an external designer. It will cost more, but we'll learn something.
1 - Not sure I like it, but ok.
4 weeks (<1 month) later the circuit board was designed and prototyped. The internal effort was terminated. The head of engineering reevaluated, and fired the internal circuit board design manager (root cause), and farmed out the design team to other managers. Everyone won. We have a much more efficient team. Even the design manager let-go, learned his prescriptive, control-centric methods were outdated and inefficient (for sure), and has a pretty good new job.
I too have "lived to see another day" on a compromise, regained momentum and bypassed the competition. Yet, compromising costs valuable time and often dilutes the outcome for everyone.
Assessing a decision to compromise is crucial and requires weighing what you gain from what you are giving up ( not always easily discernible). In other words, "when you pickup a stick you pickup both ends" - one good and one bad... and somewhere towards the middle you dilute the meaning of both.
I could've given in and let it take 4 months, or used a lot of political capital and forced the issue. I think the cost was less valuable than the political capital, and it would've been a harder lesson to learn from.
Think we are pretty much in agreement.
Looks like a match.
It fits a hand like a well-picked glove.
It fits so do not acquit. .
Yeah.
Uh, huh.
PA-TOOIE!