It occurs to me that as conservatives, we often criticize leftists for having a lack of principles; an argument which routinely, if not universally, goes completely over their heads. One is left to wonder why, and it is just too simplistic to presume that all leftist simply lack the understanding of basic words, although that argument could certainly be made.
The left thrives of ambiguous, amorphous, and vague definitions but this becomes often problematic when attempting to discuss real issues rather than entertainments, emotions, and political protests.
The word “principle” is a word that leftist are never taught in school, at least not in any real detail, and a word used by the right as if it were so commonly understood that everyone was in complete agreement about it.
People on the right need to learn that when a leftist hears a comment about their lack of principles, they are immediately defensive because to them “principles” are something akin to values, mores, norms, or feelings.
They have all kinds of things they “value” and they certainly have tons of “feelings” so they immediately jump to the conclusion that people on the right are idiots or uneducated. When your view of the definitions of words is vague, then it is easy to think that other people just don’t understand. It is sufficient for them to be somewhat in the neighborhood of the definition to feel that they understand it.
So, this post is largely for any leftist who, being obviously lost on the internet, might stumble upon our humble little site with a rendition of a certain example classification of principles in a more of a way of explaining.
Principles are a comprehensive and fundamental law, doctrine, or assumption
or a rule or code of conduct. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/principle Of course, as a mathematician, an assumption would be an axiom or postulate; a fundamental law would be a proof; and a code of conduct would more precisely be an operation or property.
As you can see there are more vagaries in language than conservatives like to admit, just as there are more certainties and specificity than leftists would like to admit. Different human endeavors develop different words to connote the concept of “principles” or the fundamental rules of that endeavor, which become “principles” in any discussion of morality.
For example, in Hamlet, Polonius expounds to his son Laertes certain “precepts” or rules of behavior he expects his son to follow. More colloquially, the would be known as adages or morals, which again crosses the lines into the different definitions of the word “morals”.
In law, one alternative approach, and I believe the better approach, to understanding the law is to learn those fundamental rules of reason to build up a library of principles in contrast to the modern practice of referring everything to precedent of case law.
There is a certain rhetorical mind-set which favors the recourse to the authoritative opinions of other rather than one’s own logic and reason, which in turn promotes more of an artistic story telling approach to the law, an emotive Sophistry.
As case law has become increasingly prominent, lawyers have been drawn more and more from the English and history majors in colleges and less from the mathematicians and philosophers. But once upon a time, attorneys represented people with a largely classical education steeped in moral reasoning, mathematics, and philosophy, together with Latin and Greek.
In law, the fundamental principles are known as maxims, and were often expressed in Latin, which had a certain appeal to those educated with more of a literary or rhetorical bent to their dispositions, but were fundamentally exercises in logic and reason which appealed to the more left-brain inclined.
Maxim (Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, 1856): An established principle or proposition. A principle of law universally admitted, as being just and consonant with reason. (I always found the title to the men’s magazine of that same name a little odd for that very reason.)
This is to be distinguished from mere legal phrases, which were quite often actually French phrases as often as Latin given that the nobility of England mostly spoke French in the early days of the country, phrases like “res judicata” meaning the thing decided.
Maxims were also distinct from expressions of legal doctrines such as “res ipsa loquitur”, or “the thing speaks for itself” or mere advisory phrases such as “caveat emptor”, or “let the buyer beware”.
The maxim was much like the “logic fallacies” which so often circulate on the internet these days as they established some guide lines for arguments. That is not to say that they were always right, some of them were wrong, but the use of Latin, like the modern citations, gave them a bit of an unwarranted air of authority.
So the best way to illustrate the idea is to provide a few examples of some of my favorite maxims, with a line or two of commentary. Take note of how these maxims can be employed as much in a proper political discussion as a legal one, as a conversation with a foundation of agreed upon principles can be far more productive than merely taking sides against one another in a rant.
Quod ab initio non valet, in tractu temporis non convalescere – What is not good in the beginning cannot be rendered good by time. It seems a good place to start to point out that an error in logic does not become less erroneous over time, thus a stinging condemnation of the over-reliance of the law on legal precedent.
Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus – False in one thing, false in everything. This is one of my favorites, and it was, in the English version, employed by Frederick Douglas in his last publicized speech. Very simply, once you catch someone in a deliberate lie, then they have no credibility in anything else they say. Every statement they ever make is compromised.
Allegans contraria non est audiendus – One making contradictory statements is not to be heard. While this sounds very similar to the previous maxim, there is an important distinction, in that this maxim does not refer, necessarily, to a deliberate deception but can simply be a person’s confused memory or uncertainty. The person could be confused or befuddled, thus it does not make everything they say untrustworthy, but only the contradictory statements.
Allegatio contra factum non est admittenda – An allegation contrary to fact is not to be heard. A rather formal way of saying that actions speak louder than words, but it can also apply to accusations about another person’s motives or intentions when their actions show differently, or when a person makes an assertion which could not be true. Every wild accusation does not have to be entertained as having equal merit.
Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat – The burden of the proof lies upon him who affirms, not he who denies. Speaking of such accusations, a person is under no obligation to defend themselves from wild accusations unless those accusations can be shown to be true. As I have stated before, it is the surest sign of a scoundrel to reverse the burden of proof.
Res inter alios acta alteri nocere non debet – A transaction between two parties ought not to operate to the disadvantage of a third. Another of my favorites, and a common trick among lawyers, because people will try to portray one person as guilty by getting an other person to agree to having done something wrong. We are seeing this with the guilt by association with recent public plea agreements, where a person has “admitted” that a third party told them to do it, and some seek to use those statements to disadvantage that third party.
Nemo potest facere per alium, quod per se non potest – No one can do through another what he cannot do himself. This one appears in several variations and wordings, all of which have a similar meaning, and this version is on of the more generic renditions of the idea.
Nemo punitur pro alieno delicto – No one is punished for the crime of another. Which gets us to a more specific version of the same idea, but it is at the heart of western criminal thought that a man is only responsible for his own criminal acts, not the acts of his neighbors, his wife, his family, his clan, his ancestors, his race, or his nation.
Merito beneficium legis amittit, qui legem ipsam subvertere intendit – He justly loses the benefit of the law who seeks to infringe the law. Succinctly put, if the state violates its own laws, it can not then hide behind the protection of those same laws; likewise if a state violated its constitution, it could not hide behind another clause of that constitution such as one which prevents it from being sued.
Iniquum est ingenuis hominibus non esse liberam rerum suarum alienationem – It is against equity to deprive freeman of the free disposal of their own property. This is just one of many which illustrate the tradition of the sanctity of property interests in our civilization.
In jure non remota causa, sed proxima spectatur – In law the proximate, and not the remote cause, is to be looked to. For all of those activists who want to hold people accountable for events which happened centuries ago, or vague assertions that your carbon footprint causes earthquakes in Siam, this maxim would hold otherwise.
Qui peccat ebrius, luat sobrius – He who does wrong when drunk must be punished when sober. Finally, one on the consequences of voluntary intoxication where people want to claim that they are not responsible for their behavior because they were drunk or high, but legally speaking when they chose to become intoxicated they took on the responsibility of their actions which result.
Jura naturae sunt immutabilia – The laws of nature are immutable. Finally, just one last word. The courts used to recognize the limits of any state to make rules which defy reality. For example, no rule can make a man not defend himself if attacked; no rule can turn aside a hurricane; the laws can not defy economic consequences.
