Substitute Forms Design: Fill & Download for Free

“The greatest leader is not necessarily the one who does the greatest things. He is the one that gets the people to do the greatest things.”― Ronald ReaganBack in the 70s as a young science editor, I was persuaded by a game-theory “proof” that ineffectual leaders are preferable in terms of the well-being of the country/organization to strong leaders, good or bad. The idea was that something of a vacuum would be created that would bring forth the best efforts of many.Richard Nixon’s presidency was just ending at the time, and his egregiousness, as well as that of his predecessor, Lyndon Johnson—both very powerful presidents—perhaps inclined me to agree.The fact that Nixon gave way to two utter mediocrities in Ford and Carter had me revising my estimation, as neither brought forth a bloom of voluntary effort.So, what qualities do matter? On long reflection…One, willingness to work within our systemWe are constitutionally guaranteed republicanism as our form of government, which precludes social democracy as a substitute form.Two, willingness to do the heavy liftingThe idealistic goals of our Declaration of Independence and our Constitution have not been realized as majorities quickly began asserting “freedom and equality for me but not for thee.”Three, ability to inspireWhile I remain averse to rah-rah rallying of the nation, some presidents have had an ability to speak to our “better angels,” increasing comity, even idealism, across the land.Republicanism is bottom-up, liberal governance with the people sovereign, that is, full citizens free to pursue their own ends in robust private and civil sectors, with political control limited to the public sector. It insures our equal freedom and equality.Progressivism, in contrast, is the movement to substitute Bismarckian social democracy for our constitutional heritage, a form of top-down governance (the people are subjects) with political control extended to all three social spheres. It disparages our rights, reducing freedom and equality.Our progressive presidents have beenTheodore RooseveltWilliam H. TaftWoodrow WilsonHerbert HooverFranklin RooseveltLyndon JohnsonRichard NixonGerald FordJimmy CarterBarrack ObamaFive Republicans and five Democrats (you can add Republican William McKinley at the head of the list as he steered more progressive as his administrations went along), and there’s not a keeper in the bunch. They variously engaged in imperialism, declaring crimes of conscience, Prohibition, compulsory military conscription, political control of the economy, expansion of the (unconstitutional) administrative state and other nasty business.We haven’t had all that many liberals [true sense] since the turn of the previous century, even counting straddles.Warren HardingCalvin CoolidgeDwight EisenhowerJohn KennedyRonald ReaganDonald TrumpWhile there are no liberals there to compare with the post-bellum “beard presidents” of the Republican Radical faction, these have been the presidents to most restore civil liberties and personal freedoms, to let the economy flourish, to end or at least thwart the transgressions of progressives—from Prohibition to the overreach of the administrative state. While none has, in my opinion, done an adequate job, I chalk that up primarily to progressive political opposition. These have been the keepers, despite the bad reputation that they have with progressives. They respected us as citizens and protected our freedom to act in the private and civil spheres.In my lifetime, it was the last four presidents who did the heavy lifting moving the apparatus of government, building consensus to end overt racism, to end statism, to stop political oppression around the world, to increase enterprise and trade here and abroad.And whether it was Eisenhower’s distaste for militarism:Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children. This is not a way of life at all in any true sense. Under the clouds of war, it is humanity hanging on a cross of iron.Kennedy’s call to public service:Ask not what your country can do for you. Ask what you can do for your country.Reagan’s humility:Live simply, love generously, care deeply, speak kindly, leave the rest to God.or Trump’s praise of citizenship:So to all Americans, in every city near and far, small and large, from mountain to mountain, and from ocean to ocean, hear these words: You will never be ignored again. Your voice, your hopes, and your dreams will define our American destiny. And your courage and goodness and love will forever guide us along the way.These are men have addressed the best in us and done so in that robust American way that recognizes our role as fully-empowered citizens.Men like these bring forth the best of America and Americans. Most of the rest pursued designs contrary to what this country is supposed to be about.

Software designers are less concerned about the language, and more concerned about the principles that the software must adhere to. The Liskov substitution principle is a design principle that states that a superclass may be substituted for a subclass without making the program misbehave.This is a common operation in Object-Oriented programming. Subclasses are switched in and out of the program (State Pattern) to change the behavior of the program in a controlled manner. When switching the objects it is essential that the object not break the code. Meaning that the substitution forms a valid program, possibly with different behavior, but that behavior must be correct for the program.If you like my answers, please consider supporting me on Patreon: Bill Westlake is creating Software Development Tutorials, answers, and technical talks. | Patreon

Traditional Western Philosophy is defined in different ways in different places.The common feature has to do with some form of Mind/Body Dualism which considers human experience to have a grounding in a mind and matter scenario. There are variations on the theme in philosophy.Most “world religions” have their basis in some kind of Mind/Body Dualism, because Mind satisfies the deductive proofs for the existence of God or what is referred to as “consciousness”.The opposite philosophy equates to some form of materialism.Materialism also appears in variation.Materialism in its strictest form, designated Reductive Materialism, of course, would deny that mind exists.This appears in arguments which seek to exclude mind and substitute “brain” for mental functioning.The difficulty for Reductive Materialism is that no scientist has ever been credited with the discovery and existence, in the medical sciences, of abstract concepts existing as matter, in the brain.None of the “laws of nature” or “scientific theories” have ever been scientifically shown to exist in the brain as matter.Further difficulties for Reductive Materialism appear when inquiry is conducted regarding the cause of matter. Material phenomena are subject to cause.It is difficult for someone to argue that matter caused its own existence, because scientific evidences do not substantiated such a conclusion.That presumes that matter exists, and then creates, which makes no logical sense.