GrowUp.org

GrowUp.org was founded to support the principles behind the American idea (rather grown up in nature and completely unique in the history of humanity): that all men are equal under God and that the purpose of government is therefore to protect the equal natural rights of its citizens.  There is no natural principle of who rules and gets ruled (though there are despots aplenty who would argue otherwise).  This was a huge shift from the prior status of strength/power/heredity as the basis for government.

In order to live in such a society, our founders created a government of checks and balances, but just as importantly, they understood the necessity and relied on the perpetuation of civic virtues among the people.  These virtues (among them self-restraint, self-assertion, civic knowledge, and self-reliance) are required if our society is to continue to be free.  Just as our political freedom requires limited government, limited government requires a significant degree of these civic virtues. 

Thanks to Thomas Krannawitter of the Claremont Institute and Hillsdale College for his "Introduction to Citizenship for New Americans" guide for the content of this section on our founding principles.

Self-Restraint

The American founders knew that for citizens to live in the free society and with the limited government that they envisioned, citizens must be able to control and restrain themselves.  The alternative is a large government and police state to maintain safety and order.  The ability of the citizenry to understand the difference between right and wrong (and put it into practice) is the foundation of our nation.  Self government means first and foremost governing oneself.

Self-Assertion

The founders knew that citizens must have the courage to stand up in public and defend their rights when government exercises unjust powers or powers not delegated to it.  They had just done the same.  Freedom comes at no small cost, and citizens are required to be vigilant in its defense if they expect to keep it.

Civic Knowledge

The American founders understood that the principal responsibility for keeping government within the confines of the Constitution, and therefore protecting the liberty of the American people, belongs to the American people themselves. Citizens must understand the Constitution and the structure/purpose of our government, as well as their responsibilities (no less than their rights).  Without this knowledge, any expectation of freedom would be misplaced.

Self-Reliance

The founders also knew that in order to be truly free, citizens need to provide the basic necessities of life for themselves.  But since freedom to succeed is inseparable from freedom to fail, they understood that there would be a need to support those who couldn't provide.  The solution for those cases was to depend on their own families, or their local churches/charities.  Only as a last resort would the government be necessary or available. 

The danger is that those who depend on someone else for their sustenance are beholden to them.  So the more that people depend on (and are beholden) to government, the greater the danger of that government becoming an intrusive and oppressive one. 

In addition (and related) to the underlying principles of our country's founding, GrowUp.org is based on several other guiding principles, discussed below. 

It is very safe to say that our founders would be surprised to learn that these could possibly be misunderstood and/or in dispute. And yet they are.

There exist some absolute scientific and moral truths in the world. 

This does not mean that everyone can agree on which truths are really true, but without even accepting the ability for truth to exist, there is no basis for any thought/argument.  Those that claim truth only exists independently for each of us, certainly don't hesitate to criticize others when they don't agree with them. Those who can't admit there are some absolute truths, can't condemn the murderer who kills them (and not just because they are dead) and certainly won't qualify as grown ups.

There is a balance between mercy and justice.  

It is very easy to cry for justice whenever we feel we are treated unjustly - we do it all the time!  Of course, when we happen to make a mistake, it's time for mercy.  While we are free to give mercy as individuals, it is very problematic for those in society charged with dispensing justice to change the rules in order to offer mercy after the fact.

When they provide mercy to those who intentionally break clearly established rules, they act unjustly to the victims of the crime.  For example, the idea that it is compassionate to always oppose harsh punishment for the guilty is really just a lack of compassion for the innocent.  And who deserves justice and compassion more?

Markets provide critical information to both provider and consumer through the pricing mechanism. 

Without knowing the price someone is willing to pay for your product/service, there is no way to understand if you are providing the optimal/best one.  The free movement of prices is the only way to fairly allocate products/services to the consumers who value them the most. 

Coercion of producers (through price and quantity limits) is no better than coercion of consumers (forced to buy inferior products/services).  Any monopoly (and that includes all government) faces this issue - it's impossible to know what services people value when they don't have to pay for them directly and/or have no alternate providers.  The result is that every monopoly (and government) tends to both over charge and under deliver. 

And the alternative to economic allocation is political - it's not what you pay, but who you know.  If you think life isn't fair enough under the economic model, the alternative is significantly worse.   

There is a tradeoff between creativity and efficiency with the size of any organization.  

As organizational size increases, more controls are required to manage the larger number of employees, vendors, and customers.  While potentially leading to greater efficiency (economies of scale), there is almost always a decrease in creativity and responsiveness.  So while bureaucracy is a given with scale, it's important to understand the tradeoffs.

The relevance to the task at hand is that government is by far the largest organization in the United States and by definition will have the least ability to serve creatively and responsively (and, frankly, doesn't often succeed in maximizing efficiency either).  Though this is likely more due to the monopoly effect, above, than the size effect described here.

Success in any endeavor should be measured by the outputs produced, rather than the inputs required to produce them.  

Looking at the cost of some activity is meaningless unless you know what it produces.  You can't know the value of anything without both pieces of information.  In the same way, you can't compare these things in isolation - it is critical to have perspective. 

Given that it is impossible to satisfy all needs and wants (the inability to understand this may well be a key part of the problem), tradeoffs must be made.  In order to make these decisions then, you need to know both sides of the equation and have some historic perspective.   

Each individual is unique and has different strengths (and weaknesses), and it is clearly wrong to group people based on superficial characteristics.  

Treating individuals as groups is one of the worst (and yet never discussed) forms of "-isms."  Grouping people by race or sex (or whatever) and claiming that they all have the same point of view is idiotic, and should be offensive to any grown up (though being offended is not a characteristic of real grown ups). 

Then there are those who take it a step further by stating that they represent a particular group's views - a position that should strike any thoughtful person as even more ludicrous.  At some point, those "represented" really need to stand up to this kind of demagoguery if we are ever going to get where we need to - where the content of your character is more important than the color of your skin (or your sex, age, religion... you get the picture).

Agreement or dissent is to be respected on the merit of the reasoning behind it.  

All ideas should be heard, but no bad idea deserves the same level of respect as a good one.  People are entitled to earn respect, but their claims and expressions are only worth the value of their content. 

It is very dangerous business to judge the motives behind someone else's position, and it is even more dangerous to accept or dismiss the validity (or lack thereof) of their arguments based on your perception of their motives.  To assume that your adversary is bad, as opposed to just wrong, really leads to problems. 

Of course they may well be bad, but that doesn't remove the need for you to win your case on its merits.  And not judge theirs on your guess as to their motives.

While it's incredibly crucial to evaluate the past, it's even more important to focus on what you can do to affect the future.  

Whining about decisions already made (like bets already placed), does less than little good.  The point is where you go from where you are now, not from where you wish you were.  Learning from ones mistakes is definitely a key to growing up, but thinking you can turn back time is not.

In finance, it's called a sunk cost and should be ignored - you can't recover it, and present or future decisions won't affect it.  So appreciate what you've learned in the past and use it to evaluate your decisions going forward, but make those decisions with an eye on what you can change - the present and the future.

Failing to hit high standards is better than having none.    

This is really one of the more disturbing problems of our time - that the term "hypocrite" is so completely misused/misunderstood.  It once was clear to grown ups that they could advocate a position, even if they personally failed to always live up to it.  The key was knowing it was right, trying to live up to it, and most importantly applying it equally to all.

The key distinction, and the real definition of hypocrisy, is professing beliefs or virtues you don't even try to possess, but expect others to have.  So failing to live up to a standard doesn't remove the standard.

The alcoholic against drunk driving, or the smoker that tells his kids not to start, or the formerly promiscuous mom warning her daughter not to engage in premarital sex is not necessarily a hypocrite.  Just like the athlete who before the game proclaims his team will win. 

But the rapper who repeatedly sings "nigger," but then condemns the use of the word is - he is looking for special treatment, where his actions are excused while others with the same ones are not.

The idea that you can only promote values that you personally always live up to is completely erroneous, and frankly very dangerous.  There is no slope more slippery than the one that silences the imperfect (all of us) for their shortfalls, and in effect then promotes the lowest in all of us.