Being on-the-level is not the same as "having principles." Principles may be good or bad, so having them is not necessarily a virtue. Nevertheless, most people associate principles with goodness, and this association is consistent our intent in these discussions. Given that principles are good things to have, we should consider the different types of principles. In a technical society, some principles are as solid as laws of nature. Those found in science and engineering, are sometimes so fundamental that they are referred to as first principles. Other principles may be derived from first principles, but they must always be consistent with those first principles.
Regardless of the types of principles that apply to a problem or situation, the violation of a principle is fundamental evidence that we are headed for trouble. While complicated situations or conditions may obscure the applicable principles, there is almost always an underlying principle involved. When people understand and agree with the underlying principles, identifying and reaching consensus regarding a solution to a problem should be less ambiguous and may even be simple.
Conversely, when there is no agreement on basic principles, an effective and lasting solution to the problem is not likely to be found. To reach any agreement at all, both sides of an issue are asked to compromise on their principles, creating a weak foundation for any plan intended to address the problem. Examples of conflicting and, thus, compromised principles are found in Congress all the time.
Forcing each issue to be discussed at a more fundamental level would establish a parallel with the fundamental approaches taken in science and engineering. The U. S. Constitution and its Bill of Rights may be considered the first principles of politics, government, and many social situations. All issue-specific principles must be consistent with those first principles.
When we either fail to state the issue-specific principles or fail to ensure that they are consistent with constitutional principles, we can not claim to be on the right track. Connecting our thinking with our principles is the first step toward a successful and appropriate conclusion. Subsequent steps may include additional elements of Technidigm-2000, depending on the issue and proposed actions.
Indeed, under Technidigm-2000, each bill placed before Congress might have 12 parts and require 12 votes simply to define the issue being addressed and lay out a possible solution system in the form of a law. Over time, the solution system uses the available resources to achieve the desired goals. The solution system can be changed, but its underlying principles and ultimate goals remain constant. With principles and goals in mind, a government employee or a citizen could be free to take creative initiatives without being considered to be violating the law.
In essence, we should conclude that there is no point passing new laws when there is no agreement as to the underlying principles and goals. Since achieving perfect agreement is not realistic, it may be necessary to vote on those principles and goals. Thus, one of our first tasks in any decision-making or problem-solving effort is to identify the principles that apply, even if the different parties involved would like to apply different principles.
If we can get politicians to argue over their basic principles first, we can start to select the best of them. Evaluating their consistency in terms of their principles, we can assess their integrity. From those having an acceptable level of integrity, we can select those with acceptable wisdom, a trait that is dependent on education and experience. Then we can move on to selecting candidates based on their goals and solution systems.
With a continued emphasis on principles and more intellectual reporting, perhaps we can speculate that news media reporters and their support personnel will gradually develop a better set of principles for their own profession. Just the voters and consumers are able to select office holders and breakfast serials, they can select their preferred source of news and entertainment. It would only require a little direct criticism of a particular news organization regarding its operating principles to suggest to the public to look elsewhere for their news.
As discussed in greater detail later, Technidigm-2000 elements include four elements called levels. The four levels provide a powerful communications framework for the media criticism discussed above. With public awareness of the four levels, the public and commercial advertisers can influence news organizations to, at least, be on-the-level and may be able to get them to rise above level one opinions.
Competing news organizations might claim a higher percentage of on-the-level and high level news reporting. Using Technidigm-2000 terminology, their claims can be made quickly and clearly, encouraging an equally effective response from the competition. Improvements in the news reporting environment become unavoidable.
Stated from a different perspective, when we are not sure of which principles apply, we do not have a solid foundation or understanding of the problem or its solution. Without this understanding, it is much less likely that we have a common sense solution to the problem. To ensure a common sense solution, it is much more important to state what one's principles are than to state what one is going to do. Principles do not change quickly, if at all, but our solution can and should change as frequently as needed to ensure a continuing connected to common sense.
Moreover, not everyone agrees that minimum government is a desirable goal. When the people of democracies find out that they can shift the wealth of others into their own pockets, voting becomes a popularity contest based on how many goodies each candidate promises to deliver. Extreme versions of wealth shifting can result in economic collapse by discouraging industrious people, as evidenced by the results of communism, the ultimate in big governments.
Big government facilitates wealth shifting by demanding that more and more resources be turned over to it by the most industrious people. More and more types of taxes are developed. Paying the same percentage of income in taxes is characterized as unfair, allowing us to tax the most industrious and successful people at a higher percentage. Not only do they have to pay more absolute dollars for the same "services" simply due to the effects of percentage taxing, they have to pay a higher percentage as their "fair share."
There is nothing fair about percentage taxing. It is simply a convenient way of paying for the burden of big government. If we required someone to pay more for a television or a hamburger based on their wealth, most of us would consider that to be unfair. If they paid more voluntarily, such that the prices for others would be less, then we would consider them to be altruistic or philanthropic. We certainly would not demean them or criticize them.
Under the current tax system, we force wealthy people to pay more for government services, and we demean and criticize them as being cheap if they object. When taxes are raised, politicians make it clear that rich people will be taxed more than the rest of us, making it more palatable to us. When taxes are reduced, politicians often strive to find a way to turn the action into the most votes, again tending to penalize rich people.
When someone says that a tax is fair, it is almost always because it is unfair. If it were fair, it would be intuitively obvious and would not have to be stated. It just depends upon what the motivation is behind the statement and how much explanation is needed to make the tax appear to be fair, under the assumption that we can not think for ourselves. The rich and well to do got that way by methods that seem to escape the rest of us, and they are usually the most productive members of society, making jobs for the rest of us.
We also hear the argument that many people who are rich inherited the money or came by it in some other way that required little effort on their part, or that they are simply beneficiaries of an economy created by the politicians. Even if some are truly undeserving, it is not "fair" for the government to take away their property and give it to others, or to make them pay more for the same government benefits (or problems) that the rest of us are financing. It just does not sound correct to say that we intend to tax the rich unfairly so that big government can prosper and so that most of the voters can be convinced that taxes are good for them.
The rich may prosper in spite of our unfair tax rules, but many more of us would also prosper with a smaller government. Our money would also be spent on more appropriate community needs rather than for pork barrel projects that make no sense but that make a politician seem more worthy in the eyes of his own constituents.
Small government makes wealth shifting less necessary, so small government in itself promotes prosperity by motivating and enabling people to become successful. On the other hand, we might also conclude that the larger our government systems, the more likely we will experience economic collapse. We should also conclude that this basic principle has not changed in the past 200 years. Again, the U. S. Constitution is based on specific principles, including the first principle that all forms of government are bad. Some are just not as bad as others. Thus, even if we have the best form of government, it should be minimized to what is absolutely necessary. Not only is this the first principle of government, it is arguably the simplest and most elegant.
Similar to these path-of-least-resistance methods of government as embodied in the practice of judicial interpretations of constitutional issues, some nuclear plant operators do a lot of interpreting. In their environment of "verbatim compliance," creative interpretations of procedural requirements are very attractive. For example, if a step in a nuclear plant operating procedure is not in a convenient sequence, an operator might interpret the stated procedural sequencing as not important. Since such operator interpretations have often resulted in problems, the word interpret is a "red flag" in the nuclear industry, at least among those who know what they are doing.
If a nuclear plant operating procedure involves any interpretation, then the procedure is not adequate. Most of us are relieved to hear that, but not all nuclear plant operators fully understand and conform with this principle. Likewise, not everyone associated with politics and government is eager to conform with the interpretation principle. They want to be able to interpret things on their own terms, which leads to constant argument.
Nuclear plant operators having a more mature understanding of their nuclear safety responsibilities understand the importance of the interpretation principle. Nevertheless, it only takes one unenlightened manager in the organization to make life miserable for those operators who insist on observing basic nuclear safety principles. In the short term, it is often more profitable to ignore basic principles, but long term consequences can be devastating. The nuclear industry learned a lot about the dangers of interpretations as a result of the very expensive accidents at Three Mile Island and at Chernobyl.
For example, now that we can closely observe and assess pre-birth development of a human baby, we no longer agree on when life starts nor when the legal protections afforded individuals begin. Life in the womb is now more real to us than it was 200 years ago. A parallel but contrary technical development is that we can also better predict birth defects and are more able to abort a pregnancy. The constitutional principles for protecting life will eventually win this conflict because people will increasingly realize that an unborn baby also lives. We may even reach the conclusion that the life of the fetus is as important as the life of the mother. Depending on the topic, the transition between old and new interpretations of basic constitutional principles has been and will continue to be painful.
For the skeptics among us, try to state this interpretation transition with the opposite meaning: Can the life of the mother become even more important than the life of the fetus than was the case in previous years? Can the convenience of the mother become more important than the life of the fetus?
As the life of a baby in the womb becomes more apparent, the rights of that technology-defined baby will approach the rights of the traditionally-defined baby. This is a rather profound example of the constancy of principle and the resulting ambiguity produced by advances in technology. In the absence of constitutional re-definitions, this technology derived ambiguity is unavoidable. Importantly, such ambiguity can increase the power of government individuals and institutions.
Without constitutional revisions that reflect the more technological version of fundamental principles, it is tempting for many of us to vote for political candidates inclined to excuse the promiscuous or unintended creation of babies in order to get more votes. Their principles are based on the ballot box, not on the kinds of principles that relate to good character. Since they use polls and focus groups to tell them how to get votes, their basic character is achievement oriented rather than founded on good character principles. As the popularity of condemning abortion grows, the same politicians would, presumably, follow the crowd.
Under Technidigm-2000, our common understanding of we mean by life is transformed more rapidly because of the focus on basic principles. Focusing on principles makes it easier to arrive at a decision (Technidigm-2000, level 4). Moreover, when we apply Technidigm-2000 to such transitional social problems, it is much easier to understand where we are going and why.
Thus, sorting out the confusion surrounding even the most profoundly difficult social issues is greatly facilitated with a modest application of technical thinking. In this example, we only had to understand and apply one of the 12 Technidigm-2000 elements to remove a great deal of technology induced confusion. Nevertheless, understanding, having, and applying only principles in our thinking is not sufficient to meet the demands of modern society. It is only one of the 12 parts, and it only contributes to the process of arriving at a good solution system for an issue.
Without Technidigm-2000, issues are greatly polarized. In the case of the life of the fetus, we have a continuing acrimonious argument by choice and life factions. As with other polarized agendas, logic and principles are replaced with nonsense. The debate, such that it is, is easily dominated by extremist organizations that have no motivation to work on updating the principles and resolving the issue. Indeed, once a special interest group is created, it does not tend to phase itself out even in the face of being irrelevant. Indeed, its key employees realize that their livelihood is based on being in a fight with an enemy, so they convince themselves that they are fighting for a just cause and that there are evil people out to get them.
For its part, the news media promotes such ongoing battles, giving both of the polarized sides of an issue equal weight regardless of facts and principles. In this environment, it is difficult if not impossible for a democracy to keep up with its own technology. Under Technidigm-2000, the more thoughtful non-polarized members of society can readily dismiss the extremist positions. They may also decide to support one of the extremist positions, but they do so much more intelligently, depending on where their principles take them.