Introduction

Social Security is a Ponzi scheme. But then again, so is much of our government. 

That is the subject of today’s 10-minute episode. 

Continuing

When I was a Freshman in college, a Sophomore came to me asking me to sign a chain letter. My first thought was, “Wow. A Sophomore is talking to me.” My second was, “What’s a chain letter?” I asked the question out loud, and his response was that it was a quick way for me to make $5. I was to give him $5, then get two others to give me $5 each, with me making a quick five spot. It was official in the sense that there was a chart, starting with him, of course, at the top, with two names under him, two names under each of those names, and so on. The chart made a perfect pyramid. 

I gave him the $5, and never got a dime from anyone else. I paid for a lesson that I thought I would never need to apply again, but here we are.

That’s exactly how a Ponzi scheme works. Oh, Charles Ponzi did not work out of a college dorm, and he nailed people for millions at a time, but the principle is no different. Just as in a chain letter, early investors get their money out with a substantial profit. But those profits do not come from any profitable or productive activity; both the return of the original investment and the profits come from money paid in by later investors. Wealth is not created, it is simply transferred from later investors to earlier investors. And it is clear this house of cards must collapse in on itself. 

That’s exactly how the Social Security pay-as-you-go system works. In your 401(k) plan, you pay in advance over time to accumulate funds to spend later in life. Properly funded public and corporate pension plans work that way as well. Social Security does not. 

Today’s Key Point: Social Security is a pay-as-you-go system, and pay-as-you-go is the very definition of a Ponzi scheme. The difference between a Ponzi scheme and Social Security is that Ponzi schemes are illegal, and Social Security is mandatory. Given that Ponzi operated privately in the 1920’s, illegally, and without the participation mandate required by Social Security and still made huge amounts of money, perhaps someone like Ponzi, e.g., Bernie Madoff, should be considered for the position of US Commissioner of Social Security.  

Making Social Security mandatory, an advantage that neither Messrs. Ponzi nor Madoff enjoyed with their schemes, delays but does not eliminate the possibility of collapse. When a Ponzi scheme runs out of new participants to support the earlier ones, it must collapse. In 1940 there were 160 participants for everyone receiving benefits; today there are about 3. The Treasury steps in with borrowed money to keep paying the beneficiaries. Social Security is a needed program, and can be fixed. A sliding scale for the retirement age is the best fix, but we have addressed that in earlier episodes, so we’ll move on with today’s topic. 

Medicare and Medicaid are both pay-as-you-go programs, and, by definition, Ponzi schemes. As with Social Security, government endeavors to turn illegal and damaging into legal and virtuous by making things mandatory.

But let’s look at less obvious areas, remembering the definition of a Ponzi scheme being pay-as-you-go, as opposed to saving and investing for the future. What other areas of government are pay-as-you-go Ponzi schemes? Or we can turn the question around and ask if there are any government programs that are not pay-as-you go.

Let me give you an example from right here in Colorado dealing with neglected infrastructure. And I am guessing that you have examples from your geography as well. Highway I-25 is the main North/South Corridor running the length of Colorado on the Eastern side of the Rockies, the Front Range as it is called here.

Introduction

We have had multiple “existential threats” over the centuries, yet here we still are, alive and well, and listening to the dire warnings about yet another end-of-the-world threat. 

Are we listening to a resurrected Chicken Little screeching about how The Sky is Falling, or is the threat for real this time?

That is the subject of today’s 10-minute episode. 

Continuing

To the best of everyone’s knowledge, only one existential threat has ever visited our planet, and that was when the dinosaurs were wiped out. I’m with the group that blames asteroids. If for no other reason than asteroids are not a protected group, and have not hired lawyers.

More recently, various wars and their new technologies have been seen as life-on-earth-ending threats. In WWI, poison gas and machine guns were seen that way. In WWII, the airplane, perhaps especially long-range, high-capacity bombers, were seen as a dire threat. In both world wars, the major concern of those issuing the threats was the new technology's ability to wipe out civilian populations on a widespread basis. And the atomic bomb, used almost 75 years ago, caused even more catastrophic predictions.

In 1963, post Korean War, and prior to Vietnam, Bob Dylan wrote and performed his haunting song, “Masters of War”. Let’s look at some of the lyrics:

“You've thrown the worst fear

That can ever be hurled

Fear to bring children

Into the world

For threatening my baby

Unborn and unnamed

You ain't worth the blood

That runs in your veins”

From this then popular song, we can see that climate change worriers are far from the first to claim that a threat is so dire that not having children is the preferred path. “Fear to bring children into the world.” Do you suppose that any would-have-been parents went childless because of the anti-war viewpoint in Dylan’s song? “Masters of War” remained very popular throughout and past the Vietnam War. Anti-war sentiment and distrust of “the man” was at least as strong as today’s climate change furor and the distrust of anyone who disagrees.

Well before Dylan, Thomas Malthus, an English cleric and scholar, influential in the fields of political economy and demography in the late 1700s, wrote: 

“That the increase of population is necessarily limited by the means of subsistence,

That population does invariably increase when the means of subsistence increase, and,

That the superior power of population is repressed by moral restraint, vice and misery.”

In other words, Malthus was convinced that we were going to run out of food for the expanding population and starve. In 1800, there were 1 billion people; today we are close to 8 billion. And we have more food per person than ever. 

In the same vein, in 1968, Paul R. Erlich, an American biologist, and the Bing Professor of Population Studies in the Department of Biology at Stanford University, and president of Stanford's Center for Conservation Biology, wrote “The Population Bomb.” Here’s a quote, "The battle to feed all of humanity is over. In the 1970s hundreds of millions of people will starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now. At this late date nothing can prevent a substantial increase in the world death rate.” 

Does Erlich’s prediction of imminent death on a global scale have a familiar ring?

Ah, and let’s not forget the peak oil existential threat. More recent than the unfounded Erlich scare, the peak oil crowd was claiming that we were going to run out of oil; lights would go out, gas would go to $25 a gallon--disaster! The idea was that we knew about all the oil there was to know about, and with increasing use,

Introduction

From the Spanish Inquisition, and before, to today, True Believers have been attacking people, cancelling people is the new term. Cancelled physically by killing, or psychologically and financially by insults, false accusations and specious accusations of, well, simply not being pure enough, of not having always shown 100% consistency with current hard and fast true beliefs. No matter how often current orthodoxy may change, those who are True Believers in the orthodoxy preached by their chosen group are all in to the point where nothing else is at all acceptable.

That is the subject of today’s 10-minute episode. 

Continuing

The entire “You are with me or you are against me.” thought process is invading virtually every part of our lives. And dividing our country and our friends and families. 

Here’s how to fix all of that. Start with a search for common goals. Do not start with a statement of how right you are. 

Let’s take a look at some of our history and see if there are any lessons for today. WWI was a horrific affair, with tens of millions of dead, maimed and ruined lives. Often people ask how any war started, and sometimes there is a clear--if unsatisfactory--answer. WWII started in Europe when Germany attacked Poland, and later attacked Russia. Attacks led by True Believer Adolph Hitler and his Believer followers. It started in the Pacific when Japan attacked the US. Japan was led by True Believer General Hideki Tojo, Prime Minister during the war, and his Believer followers. The Allies, mainly the US, Russia, France and Britain, had clear and well justified reasons to fight the Axis; Germany, Italy and Japan. The Korean War started when the North attacked the South. The justification, to save South Korea and to contain communism, was less universally acclaimed, but still justified. The Korean and Chinese True Believers lit this fire. 

Vietnam, also justified as necessary to contain communism, was simply an exercise in futility, and a monument to ambition and ignorance. But the “think tank” in Washington, to me exemplified by the lead “numbers man”  Robert McNamara, a senior American business executive and Secretary of Defense, serving from 1961 to 1968 under Presidents John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson. McNamara was dead (pun intended) wrong about the war, and 58,000 Anericans paid the ultimate price for his beliefs. Ah, but he was a True Believer. He Truly Believed in supporting a corrupt Catholic government in Buddhist South Vietnam. He Truly Believed that by observing the greater numbers of the enemy killed vs the number of Americans killed, that we were willing. He seems to have forgotten that you win wars by taking--and holding--ground. But he was a numbers man. And a True Believer.

Now to WWI. Most of us learned that it started when Archduke Ferdinand of Austria was assassinated. A young Serbia Muslim, Gavrilo Princip, participated, along with 4 other Serbs and a Bosniak, in assassinating the heir-apparent to the Austrio-Hungarian empire. A series of threats, demands and insults created a clash of egos that exploded into WWI. It is not unlike a bar fight, where no one really knows how it started, but there is blood and bodies everywhere. Princip was a True Believer. Kaiser Wilhem, II of Germany, a major player, was a True Believer. As were many of the young men from both sides who were taught that God was on their side. Despite the death and destruction, despite new weapons of war; airplanes, gas and machine guns, virtually nothing was decided. But enough True Believers were left from both sides to help trigger WWII. (In a telling twist, Muslim Serbia sees Princip as a hero, Christian Bosnia sees him as a traitor.)

Communism, a far greater killer than Nazism, is fueled and expanded by True Believers. How else could any political/economic system,

Introduction

Welcome to the second Revolution 2.0™ interview; part of a continuing series. The first interview was on a giveback subject, with Mathew Passy and causepods. Today is another giveback subject, the annual 525-mile, 8-day bicycle ride raising money for the Arthritis Foundation: Riding for a cure. Sit back as Shannon Marang Cox, the Development Director for the ride, and “Champion of Yes” tells us why this is so needed, why it is such a deep commitment, and so much fun for the 250 riders and staff. Including yours truly--me.

That is the subject of today’s episode.

Continuing

Did you know that 300,000 kids in the US have debilitating arthritis? Along with 54 million adults, making Arthritis the leading cause of disability in the US. Shannon Marang Cox, the Development Director for the California Coast Classic, the annual, 525-mile bicycle ride from San Francisco to LA, knows. Let’s hear her talk about why it is important, how it helps, and why the 250 riders, of all sorts and ages, of all abilities, and on all sorts of contraptions, including regular bikes, recumbent trikes, and e-bikes do this fundraising ride. And they often do it again and again.  

And you will hear from me about why I have done it several times, and why I have committed to doing it again in 2020. All 525 miles.

Click one of these links to learn more, support me as a rider and/or register as a rider.

For those listening, the main site is arthritis.org/californiacoastclassic

Contact

As we get ready to wrap up, please do respond in the episodes with comments or questions about this episode or anything that comes to mind, or connect with me on Twitter, Facebook, and LinkedIn. And you can subscribe on your favorite device through Apple, Google, or Stitcher.

If you liked today’s podcast, other podcasts or the revolution2-0.org site itself, comment, subscribe, and encourage others to subscribe with you. Each One Reach One will help spread the word about Revolution 2.0™.

Will Luden, coming to you from 7,200’ in Colorado Springs.

Introduction

“How do you feel when you wake up in the morning and you look outside the window and it’s raining again? How do you feel?”

That is the subject of today’s 10-minute episode. 

Continuing

Okay, Will, is this a change of pace? Or what is this topic about? No, joy is part of what makes life worthwhile, part of what makes good times more fun. It makes the bad times far more tolerable, and prompts the type of clear thinking needed to get past the hard times. Joy is far more than merely, well, joyful, it is required for a good life. Required to fulfill the Revolution 2.0 principles and philosophy. And like sunscreen, it is best applied liberally and reapplied often.

Several years ago when I was preparing, training, for my first 525-mile, 8-day bicycle ride down the Coast of California as part of a group raising money for the Arthritis Foundation. I was riding in a group that included an experienced multiple-day bicycle event rider. We were talking while pedaling, and I expressed my nervousness about my upcoming 525-mile ride. He said to me, “Will, you are strong enough as a rider to make it all 8 days. The question is your butt and your mind.” “What?” I replied, “My butt and my mind?” “Yes, multiple days back-to-back on a bicycle seat can be hard to handle if you are not used to it.” Then he made a point by way of a joke saying, “The best way to train your bottom for something like that is to sit sideways on a split rail fence for about a week.” Then he got to his main point with a question. “Let’s say it is day 5 of 8, you are on a long uphill, the wind is in your face and it is beginning to rain. What are you going to say to yourself?” He let it hang in the air like a rhetorical question, and I got it. Was I going to stick my tongue out and enjoy the rain, or was I going to start feeling sorry for myself? Was I going to be thankful for the training I had done, my very competent bicycle, and the satisfying breakfast that was still partly with me, or was I going to let my mind go downhill while I pedaled uphill?

Here was my riding companion’s point: Complaining is a decision. Joy is a decision. Which choice would I make? 

We all face decisions like this; how will we react when it is raining again? Or when our party or candidate loses? Or our favorite sports team? Does it take some sort of triumph, or at least very good news for us to be joyful? Or do we need alcohol or other drugs to conjure up joy?

Answer: The seeds of joy are everywhere. Like the wild flowers that do not appear in dry seasons, but appear in joyful (there’s that word) profusion when there is enough water that season, joy is latent, always there, waiting for us to water it with the decision to be joyful. Unlike wildflowers, we do not need a season of preparation to find joy; a momentary decision will do it. Here are some of the many advantages of being filled with joy:

It’s free.

It takes no preparation. Just a choice.

Joy can be found anywhere, including in the simplest of things.

A hug

A happy dog or purring cat

A light breeze

A child who wants to spend time with you

A spouse or partner you want to spend time with

Music

Seeing an old friend

When you are bored, and want to get over it

When you are angry or sad, and are ready to get over it.

We saw my riding friend, long distance cycling mentor's advice; here’s mine. Everything; being bored, happy, angry, joyful--are all choices. Are we making the right ones?

Will, I am not buying that all of these moods are choices. C’mon, when you lose a friend or your dog dies, you are going to be sad--period. And if you get treated unfairly by, for example, law enforcement or your insurance company, you have a right to be mad.

Introduction

In 1841, Britain, by then a constitutional monarchy with democratic voting, seized Hong Hong from China’s Quing dynasty as part of Britain’s colonial expansion. In 1997, Britain returned Hong Kong to one-party rule China, as part of China’s expansion. 

China, quite predictably, is working hard to break its 1997 

promises of non-interference with freedom-loving, capitalist Hong Kong. Tens of thousands of Hong Kong protesters, the real Antifa, are struggling to resist absorption by Communist China. There are important lessons for us in America in the broken promises from China and in the pro-freedom struggle.

That is the subject of today’s 10-minute episode.

Continuing

Despite what China promised in 1997, and has reiterated ever since, China is hell bent on swallowing freedom-loving Hong Kong, and making it a part of its one-party rule regime. If you think about it, China has never experienced anything like freedom. From the Emperors to Mao to today’s Communist Party, China and the Chinese have always been under autocratic rule. And they are not about to change. They will eventually swallow Hong Kong. In part because they planned on doing exactly that all along, and in part because they know that an island of freedom in a sea of greatly restricted freedoms is simply too dangerous to be allowed to stand. If you have a piece of cheese with mold on it, you need to cut the mold out before it spreads. To China’s rulers, freedom is the mold that needs to be removed, either surgically or by simply smashing it. 

China infamously smashed a 1989 pro-freedom protest in mainland China in Tiananmen Square. The well publicized photo showing a confrontation between an individual citizen and the tanks that the rulers had called out to suppress the thousands of protesters is hard to forget--once you have seen it. Was the ruling Communist Party in China at all embarrassed? Not a bit of it. This was just a hiccup to them. Did the world’s free countries do anything but huff and posture? Barely a whimper.

And the Communist Party of China has the patience to out-wait everyone, to wait until all the storms blow over, and swallow freedom-loving Hong Kong in relative silence. Oh, there will be the obligatory huffing and puffing, but no one will do a thing. China will continue to slaughter Muslims, deny many basic freedoms to its own citizens, cheat in international dealings, swallow Hong Kong whole--and get away with it.

So, Will, I get all of this, but what is the lesson for us, for Americans? Answer. Hong Kong, long free, is being gobbled up by autocratic China. Worse, far worse, we Americans are eroding, carving up, our own freedoms. Like a snake eating its own tail. 

We are allowing our freedoms to erode on a multitude of fronts. The demand for correct speech, PC speech, is one. Cancelling, basically declaring a PC violator to be a nonperson, in another. And cancelling is not at all benign; it often ruins careers and one’s ability to produce income along with destroying reputations. 

Cancelling raises it ugly head everywhere from Hollywood to the Internet to campuses to charities. Kevin Hart, a black American stand-up comedian, actor, and producer, had been selected to host the 2018 Academy Awards, but in December of that year he stepped down as host in response to a backlash due to several alleged homophobic tweets from 2010 and 2011--7 and 8 years prior. Hart stated "If you don’t believe people change, grow as they get older, I don’t know what to tell you." Hart issued an apology to the LGBTQ comnmunity and stepped down as the host. Hart later announced he was going to reconsider stepping down, after openly lesbian comedian Ellen DeGeneres, who has hosted the Academy Awards multiple times, expressed support for Hart to be the host and said she telephoned the Academy to...

Introduction

Bloated bureaucracies are growing in size and impact, and vitally important to all of us. But as important as this subject is, it is never called out by name. 

That is the subject of today’s 10-minute episode.

Continuing

So, Will, how do bloated bureaucracies affect me? Why should I care?

First, they are obviously expensive. If you are paying more people than necessary to create a desired result, that’s waste, that’s bloat, and that’s expensive. Let’s say that we, you and I, owned, say, a plumbing supply business, and needed to make a profit to meet our personal financial responsibilities and to maintain a growing company that served its employees, customers and the community. We would need to concentrate on having the majority of our personnel focused in the areas key to our business. For example, salespeople would be key for obvious reasons, as would those who deal with our vendors. They keep prices down, maintain timely deliveries and establish strong bonds so that if supplies become short, we get the product our customers need. The accounting and facilities functions, while needed, are not as important, and should get less time, energy and money.

Pause for a definition: I am not concerned with private companies that may have larger than needed bureaucracies. Competition will sort them out without my help. It is the direct government bureaucracies, e.g., the DMV and Medicare, and the indirect ones, e.g., government-granted monopolies like utilities, and quasi monopolies, e.g., pre K-12 education, that need watching and changing.

Private businesses have the profit incentive and competition to keep them in check. What’s to keep government bureaucracies in check? Answer. Nothing. Worse, there is often an incentive to grow the employee population for reasons entirely disassociated from the stated results the organization is on record as seeking. There is no better--or more dangerous--example than public unions. Negotiations work when they are arm’s length discussions between two parties which, while both desiring to preserve the relationship, have different and competing interests. The intelligent ones seek only win-win results. For example, when a business negotiates with a supplier, the business wants the lowest prices at the best terms, while the supplier will negotiate for higher prices, and terms that make their business easier to manage. Their interests in key areas like price and terms diverge sharply. If they can find a win for both sides, perhaps higher prices than the buyer wanted, but guaranteed delivery terms, a guarantee that the supplier might have initially resisted, they will have created a win-win, advantaging both enterprises. 

When public unions negotiate with the very politicians that control their contracts, including pensions, there are no divergent interests; one hand washes the other. The unions, notably but not exclusively teachers unions, present their demands to the very politicians they fund and vote for. The obligated--and grateful--politicians accede to their demands with little in the way of a counter. Yes, that is also a win-win. The public unions and the politicians both win, but the taxpayers lose--every time. And win-win-lose is unacceptable. Or should be. BTW, some believe that public unions should be banned. I am not in that camp, or at least I am not where private competition could be provided to keep things in line. In pre K-12, in order to deliver the best education with the most efficient use of taxpayer funds, the clear solution is to provide liberal access to equally funded traditional public schools, charter schools and private schools via vouchers. With that in place, if the public schools wanted to continue their cozy relationships with the politicians who control their contacts, I’d be all for it. I would be delighted to allow competition to sort...

Introduction

Welcome to the first Revolution 2.0™ interview; the first of many. Today we are interviewing Mathew Passy in his serving others role with Causepods.org.

The two driving principles at Revolution 2.0™ are 1. Being Personally Responsible and 2. Being Your Brother’s Keeper. Mathew Passy, husband and father of young twins, meets part of his personal responsibilities as a top tier podcaster and a successful professional resource for other podcasters. When you listen to Revolution2.0 episodes, you benefit from his editing, other professional skills and constant training of yours truly.

Mr. Passy meets and exceeds the Brother’s Keeper principle with his non-profit Causepods.org. Causepods is a passion project of Mathew’s. (His for profit enterprise is The Podcast Consultant.) Causepods’ aim is to interview folks who are using podcasts to raise awareness for a good cause. Whether that's a non-profit, charity, medical cause, social justice movement, or anyone looking to create a positive impact in the world, from the local level to the global population. Mathew shies away from the term Brother's Keeper, but I see him as an exemplar of the very best of that term.

That is the subject of today’s episode.

Continuing

One unique feature to Causepods is that they are going to use this platform to raise money for a 501(c)3 non-profit of your choosing with online donations.  All proceeds go straight to the charity.

If you think you're a podcaster making a difference in the world, please take a few moments to fill out the Causepods Form; they can't wait to have you on Causepods.

Causepods Mission

Raise awareness for the people who are using podcasts to better their community, society, or the world. Help others tap into the power of podcasting.

Be a Causepods Guest

If you think you're a podcaster making a difference in the world, please follow this link to schedule your recording and describe the cause-based podcasting you are committed to.

Sign up to be on Causepods

Join the Group

Need help producing a caused-based podcast?  Join Causepod’s Facebook group where we'll share resources and support each other to meet our goals and stay under budget. 

Join the Facebook Group

Do you know of a cause that Causepods might support? Then go to causepods.org and fill out the simple form and good things will happen.

Contact

As we get ready to wrap up, please do respond in the episodes with comments or questions about this episode or anything that comes to mind, or connect with me on Twitter, Facebook, and LinkedIn. And you can subscribe on your favorite device through Apple, Google, or Stitcher.

If you liked today’s podcast, other podcasts or the revolution2-0.org site itself, comment, subscribe, and encourage others to subscribe with you. Each One Reach One will help spread the word about Revolution 2.0™.

Will Luden, coming to you from 7,200’ in Colorado Springs.

Introduction

First, stop the bleeding, then get the patient back to living on their own. This advice applies equally in medical and financial situations.

That is the subject of today’s 10-minute episode.

Continuing

When someone has experienced a medical emergency and is taken to a hospital, the first thing medical professionals do is assess and stabilize--halt the damage. The next steps include determining the need for any long-term treatments needed to get that person back on track for an independent, healthy and happy life. That’s how medical needs are met. Why isn’t that how we handle financial needs as well?

The hospital does not assume that the correct thing to do is to keep the patient in the facility, dependent upon the staff and equipment in place there. Hospitals are expensive and are designed for effective short-term care--not long-term--care. If necessary, the patient is referred out to less expensive, longer-term care facilities. The ultimate goal is to have the patient be able to live on their own, without any kind of medical support provided by others. This not only allows resources to be used by the next person in need, but it gives patients the freedom, the dignity and the joy that comes with unassisted living.

This is not how our society is trending when it comes to other areas where people may be hurting. For example, when people are suffering financially, the increasing tendency is not only to give assistance, but to give ever-increasing aid over extended periods of time. There is little, if any, thought given to stabilizing the financial situation--halting the damage--and helping that person to return to financial independence. 

When we create long-term dependencies in order to address short-term solutions, we are not delivering a compassionate solution: We are handing down a life sentence. Likely for generations. The cruel irony here is that the very people and groups advocating for lifelong care, the life sentence, do so in the name of compassion. 

Why is there a difference between how we as a society handle people with medical issues as opposed to people with financial challenges? The answer is in two parts: 

The motivation of the person with the need and 

The motivation of the mechanism that provides the relief. 

Let’s take the individual’s motivation; the patient or the person in financial distress. No one wants to stay in a hospital. Bad food, terrible beds, and constant poking and prodding along with other interruptions. And no Netflix. But some people might very well want to stay in a financial “hospital”; live easy and live at home. On direct deposit or EBT. Be aware that some people will say they can’t succeed on their own, when they really mean they simply won’t or don’t want to. 

This would be a good time for a quick review of Revolution 2.0™’s Can’t vs. Won’t chart. Note that in certain circumstances, permanent assistance is fully warranted--and desirable. But most certainly not in all cases as advocated by those who claim that assistance like food, housing and medical care are human rights. Reasonable access to those products and services should be made available to all. Reasonable access, not free for everyone.

What about the motivations of the workers administering the various financial assistance programs? The more money they give out, and the more people they give money to, the better their job security and chances for promotion. The requirements for jobs like these are not high; show up, be polite, fill out forms--repeat. The incentive is to give out more money to more people for longer periods of time. That’s intentionally easy to do, because there are no apparent boundaries the financial aid workers can see to limit the amount of money available to be handed out.

Introduction

We should be allowing our principles to determine our agendas. All too often, in today’s backward way of thinking, we allow our agendas to determine our principles.

That is the subject of today’s 10-minute episode.

Continuing

Principles can appropriately be described as core, fundamental beliefs. Google helps us with the following definition of a principle, “A fundamental truth or proposition that serves as the foundation for a system of belief or behavior or for a chain of reasoning.” Note the part where principles, “...serve as the foundation for a system of belief or behaviour…”. Assuming that we know what our principles are, they should lead to how we conduct our lives, and determine our agendas, political and otherwise. Too often, we grab onto an agenda or a system of belief, and conjure up principles that tie to those agendas.

Our principles are the base for our entire lives. Clearly, they come first. Everything goes upside down and backwards when we agree with certain types of political or financial thinking, align with a political party or simply make it known to family, friends and co-workers where we stand in the world before we wrestle with the fundamentals, before we come to grips with the core thinking we believe represents the truth. The world conspires against us, the world pushes us to shape our positions, our agendas, before it challenges us to anchor our principles. 

Let’s examine why that is the way the world works, at least for now. In school, the conversation from the front of the classroom, in the classroom and in and around the campus, rarely starts with core principles; when non-academic conversations begin, they center on what to believe--not how to find what you really believe. A clear extension of the strategy of teaching students what to think, not how to think. Perhaps a bit less so, the same thing happens at home. And at work. Conversations rarely center around principles, with principles being the overall strategy about how to live life. Conversations, speeches and debates start with tactics, with specifics, like whether Democrats are worse than the Republicans--or the other way around. In the political arena, most voters know where their preferred politicians stand on issues; few voters know what--if any--core principles they hold.

So let’s start with the principles that Revolution 2.0™ holds dear:

Gratitude: Everything good starts with gratitude. Ingratitude makes for a grim and unproductive outlook on life, love and politics.

Moral Compass: The terms Moral compass and True North are interchangeable to me. I like the term moral compass because it means more to me, it anchors me better. A compass works because when used at all correctly, it points to a fixed point outside of both itself and the user, allowing the user to stay on track. And that is exactly how our moral compasses need to work.

Common Goals: Don’t most of us share the same common, bedrock goals? I don’t mean desires that many share like wanting this party or this candidate to win (or the other party or person to lose), I mean the core, meaningful, underlying goals that most of us share. Find the common  ground (yes, it exists), add statistically-significant facts, facts that apply broadly to the issue, then apply non agenda-based reasoning. It works. And if the discussion falls off track, go back to the common goals–the touchstone–to get back on track. Back to bedrock.

Rights and Responsibilities: With every right, comes an equal or greater responsibility. Every right. For example, with the right to bear arms comes the responsibility to make certain that your firearms will never, ever inappropriately harm another.

Can’t v Won’t: “Can’t” and “Won’t” are completely different. Much of how we see and deal with ourselves, family and society,