Phil Beaver works to establish opinion when the-objective-truth has not been discovered. He seeks to refine his opinion by listening to other people’s experiences and observations. The comment box below invites readers to express facts, opinion, or concern, perhaps to share with people who may follow the blog.
Note: I often connect words in a phrase with dashes in order to represent an idea. For example, frank-objectivity represents the idea of candidly expressing the-objective-truth despite possible error. In other words, the writer expresses his “belief,” knowing he could be in error. People may collaboratively approach the-objective-truth.
The Advocate: See online at theadvocate.com/baton_rouge
Our Views. The Advocate represents itself as so
liberal-minded it can’t make up its mind.
“Local
control and local accountability are necessary for effective local policing,”
Sessions wrote. “It is not the responsibility of the federal government to
manage non-federal law enforcement agencies.”
Herein,
Sessions is expressing one of the issues in the minds of statesmen who opposed
England’s interference with colonial justice: the issue of internal vs external
domain. Willing people in their states authorized and organized the federal government
with limited powers.
Regarding
the above quotes of Sessions, The Advocate publishes, “We do not disagree, but
at the same time . . . “ I am not a lawyer, but I want Sessions to prevail in
the matter of the federal DOJ by-passing the state constitution and the people
in the state who pay our police for public defense.
The
Advocate reminds me of a Robert Frost quote to the effect that a liberal can’t
choose which of his own arguments to defend.
Today’s
thought, 2 Timothy 3:16. Paul
is such a psychological tyrant!
He labels his opinions “scripture” yet
expresses ideas that do not comport with civic morality.
For example, 1 Corinthians
5:7. There’s no Satan between couples who appreciate each other for life.
Letters
Louisiana
last in U.S. News & ranking (Franques). LSU has turned liberal-democrat-ivory-tower and does not
deserve funding.
Check out Moment or Movement: lsu.edu/cup/bbl/2016/dec/momentormovement.php
and then check a detailed “old white man’s view” at cipbr.blogspot.com/2016/10/lsu-moment-or-movement.html
.
Recently, LSU announced a course on
dialogues on racism. I took a course in 2002, and was not gullible for the
guilt it tried to impose on me.
LSU’s view of American history is
hopeless.
[I hope to come back to The Advocate,
because there are some great issues, but the day is gone.]
Other forums
This wishful
thinking reminds me of Congress’s DOMA, 1996. See www.congress.gov/104/crpt/hrpt664/CRPT-104hrpt664.pdf
, which on page 16 states, “This judgement entails both moral disapproval of
homosexuality, and a moral conviction that heterosexuality better comports with
traditional (especially Judeo-Christian) morality.” A 12th grade
civics student would know better than to cite religious justification for a
civil act.
For more
arguments, see http://cardozolawreview.com/Joomla1.5/content/27-3/CRANE.WEBSITE.pdf
.
DOMA was dismissed
by the fabricated U.S. v Windsor (2013).
No. However, I conduct public meetings at local libraries to
present theories and then listen to participants’ responses to (often
improvements on) the ideas. Thereby, my writing no longer belongs to me, but is
the product of iterative collaboration with people who are no longer strangers.
Some rejected the theory they heard, but are still candidates to contribute,
either in abstention or activity. Their contribution was not forgotten or lost.
My language is perhaps unique and emerging, because I pursue
the-objective-truth of which most is undiscovered and some is understood
and in use. The-objective-truth is an original expression, one of many
featuring dashes to persuade the reader to preserve the thought expressed
rather than alternatives that might compete for the reader’s thoughts.
The-objective-truth exists, and human kind works to discover elements and
connecting theories.
It is interesting that your question reached me via my
expression that “society” taints relatively recent thought (3000 years). I work
to establish civic-morality rather than social morality,
where “civic” refers to mutual justice in public connections & transactions
between strangers in the civic culture. Civic-morality transcends social
morality, civil morality, and religious morality; its standard is
the-objective-truth.
The consequence of civic-morality is voluntary
public-integrity, which divides inhabitants into two groups: a civic people and
dissidents. A civic people either collaborate for or cooperate with
public-integrity. Dissidents may be either ignorant or stubborn or criminal,
evil, and worse. Dissidents who cause real harm may face statutory law
enforcement. Otherwise, each inhabitant enjoys freedom so that each may pursue
their personal preferences for private happiness. In a civic culture—-in
civic-security, each person may use their life to discover their person rather
than to contribute to an “overall good” or sacrifice for a cause they did not
choose.
I appreciate the question and some phrases that came from my
response.
It amazes me that a question can be instructive. So many
thoughts on liberty have been shared in history.
Many thinkers, perhaps including Thomas Jefferson, expressed
themselves without distinguishing “freedom” as not equivalent with “liberty.”
Freedom from arbitrary constraint empowers an individual to earn the liberty to
pursue the discovery of his or her preferences during a lifetime. The free person
may or may not accept the freedom to earn the liberty to explore personal
preferences: exercising liberty requires work. Freedom is a privilege, and
liberty is a responsibility.
Thus, one who’d like to fly to the moon, must, without the
public transportation, provide the rockets, space-ship, and expert personnel to
make the trip in safety and security. Perhaps a human must practice liberty in
order to discover the quest to perfect his or her unique person.
The human being is so psychologically powerful that he or
she may exercise the liberty to pursue personal discovery even when freedom is
not granted. History is replete with examples of brilliant expression recorded
in prison or other captivity. However, their expressions were
intellectual—-could not reflect experiences like flying to the moon.
“Freedom from arbitrary constraint” implies
broadly-defined-civic-safety-&-security, hereafter civic-security, where
“civic” defines voluntary justice in connections & transactions between
strangers. The consequence is voluntary civic-integrity in mutual conformity to
the-objective-truth.
The person who rebukes discovered-objective-truth is a
dissident against public-integrity and begs woe. For example, a civic person
does not lie, because he or she wants the other party to respond from
the-objective-truth. Liars cannot communicate.
Arbitrary constraints come from dominant-opinion that
overrides the-objective-truth. Thus, the dominant-opinion that America is a
Protestant nation is an arbitrary constraint. Most individuals are individually
free from that constraint but suffer as members of the nation. Even today, an
atheist is not a promising candidate for president.
In summary, a civic culture, constrained only by
the-objective-truth, provides freedom so each person may practice the liberty
to pursue personal preferences. The people are constrained by
the-objective-truth, but do not arbitrarily restrict individuals in their
pursuit of private happiness. However, not every person wants liberty enough to
discover their person.
Some people conform to civilization and are thus civil from
a cultural sense. Civil conformity is a personal, arbitrary constraint. For
example, only fifty years ago, a “civil American” was expected to attend a
factional-Protestant church. Dissidents were socially lessened.
“Civil” also refers to conformity to statutory law and
law-enforcement. The two uses of “civil” unfortunately confuse the term “civil
liberty.” When a culture conflicts with statutory law, members of the offending
culture may take offense with the law. For example, some black Americans are
accustomed to internal vigilante law. Participants call in community enforcers
perhaps to protect cultural offenders from statutory law enforcement. A
neighbor who calls the police instead of the enforcers is outcast. The
community expresses civil rights to employ statutory law enforcement only on
demand. If I am correct, the confusion could be addressed with
public-integrity.
Lastly, there is the overall Western thought that humans
posses the right to life, liberty, and property (later, happiness). Some,
perhaps James Otis, wrote that the sole purpose of government is to protect
those three rights. However, as I have indicated above, liberty requires not
only conformity to the-objective-truth but the work necessary to pursue
personal preferences (happiness). Thus, in a culture of freedom, the
consequence of a person’s work determines his or her liberty to live according
to personal desires. Dissidence from these principles constrain liberty. If a person
becomes a ward of the state personal freedom lessens.
Like you, perhaps, I am fascinated with this topic. I work
to establish private-liberty-with-civic-morality. During that work, I analyzed
the historical perspective, and my essay may be found by Googling [phil beaver
+ private liberty] and choosing the URL titled “A Civic People (ACP). “
I hope I have suggested that liberty to pursue
personal preferences is facilitated by freedom from arbitrary
constraints. In a civic culture, an individual may or may not do the work
necessary to exercise individual liberty within the-objective-truth (or without
for that matter). Individual civil liberty represents confusion between
civilization (arbitrary) and statutory law (constraint against harm).
I published an
essay: “Voluntary public-integrity” at promotethepreamble.blogspot.com/.
Phil
Beaver does not “know” the-indisputable-facts. Phil
trusts and is committed to the-objective-truth of which most is
undiscovered and some is understood.
Phil Beaver is agent for A Civic People of the United
States, a Louisiana, education non-profit. See online at
promotethepreamble.blogspot.com.
No comments:
Post a Comment