August 3, 2017

Phil Beaver works to establish opinion when the-objective-truth has not been discovered. He seeks to refine his opinion by listening when people share experiences and observations. The comment box below invites readers to write.

Note 1:  I often dash words in phrases in order to express and preserve an idea. For example, frank-objectivity represents the idea of candidly expressing the-objective-truth despite possible error. In other words, a person expresses his “belief,” knowing he or she could be in error. People may collaboratively approach the-objective-truth.
 
 Note 2: It is important to note "civic" refers to citizens who collaborate for the people more than for the city.
 
A personal paraphrase of the preamble by & for Phil Beaver:  Willing people in our state routinely, voluntarily collaborate for comprehensive safety and security: continuity (for self, children, grandchildren & beyond), integrity (both fidelity and wholeness),  justice (freedom-from oppression), defense (prevent or constrain harm), prosperity (acquire the liberty-to pursue choices), privacy (responsibly discover & pursue personal goals), lawfulness (obey the law and reform injustices); and to preserve and cultivate the rule of law for the USA’s service to the people in their states.
 
Composing their own paraphrase, citizens may consider the actual preamble and perceive whether they are willing or dissident toward the preamble.  
   

Our Views (theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/opinion/our_views/article_b8dc6ca6-76e3-11e7-9c2a-473ebd29f92b.html)

I prefer to say We the People of Louisiana join We the People of the United States in thanking the police and other first responders in this incident. But that’s me. The Advocate has their “we.”

  

Today’s thought, G.E. Dean (Psalms 143:8-10, CJB)

“Make me hear of your love in the morning, because I rely on you. Make me know the way I should walk, because I entrust myself to you.  Adonai, rescue me from my enemies; I have hidden myself with you. Teach me to do your will, because you are my God; Let your good Spirit guide me on ground that is level.”

Dean says “Start your day with the Lord. He will help you throughout the day.”

Does the Lord obey David and Dean? I doubt it.

Other forums 

libertylawsite.org/liberty-forum/the-founders-as-collectivists/

Senior Editor Kuznicki immediately dismisses willing people as defined in the preamble to the constitution for the USA to assert that Congress, the President, the pair, the judiciary, or the Constitution itself, or “not possible” is the answer to self-government. George Washington’s words indicate belief that the people will govern Congress: The professor seems confused. Then, he asserts “the people generally [may] govern themselves, but that no state institutions of any form can do the job for them.” Libertarianism hinges on “a justified rule of conduct.” But there will always be dissidents and therefore the need for republicanism. Willing people may govern themselves by iterative collaboration. Perhaps Kuznicki states his claim at the people’s nadir of neglect, and the ascent to civic justice has begun.

Kuznicki’s definition of libertarianism is egocentric. The libertarian practices fidelity to his or her preferences in order to cultivate “personal virtues” in a vacuum. No politician can dictate those virtues, nor can Congress or a President. No neighbor is likely to care about his or her neighbor’s personal virtues as long as there’s no harm. That’s where Congress and the President come in: They are to manage civic morality for no harm, as discovered by the people. Because the USA has drifted into so much harm, President Trump has promised to return the power to the people. I want him to succeed and voted for him twice because of his humanness. I do not respect Kuznicki’s will to trash Trump and my votes.

I agree fully with Kuznicki’s objections to Kendall’s ideas based on theism. I think it is a mistake to skip the age of British Americans---loyal subjects who were colonists. They practiced British common law, which, for example, the Mayflower Compact assumes. But does a neighbor whose personal virtues hinge on theism conform to “a justified rule of conduct?” Kuznicki’s response is “somehow, yes.” However, religion does not belong in the civic debate. No two persons have the same religion.

Kuznicki leaves no doubt that he thinks libertarians are superior citizens. That makes it difficult to believe collaboration could help. If we met, I’d expect him to, at most, show tolerance toward my views. He’d be unaware that I view tolerance as arrogance (whether aimed toward me or offered by me). That is, the tolerant party thinks they hold the higher opinion and wait for the other party to see the light. People who tolerate me don’t realize that I consider most of their statements erroneous. I seek iterative collaboration to discover the-objective-truth rather than conflict to establish dominant opinion. And to discover civic morality for today, we need not understand the founders at all. We simply need to read the preamble, establish agreement to practice its essence, and iteratively collaborate to discover the-objective-truth and practice it using and improving the constitution for the USA. That’s packed yet understandable, in my view.

Within the body of willing people, citizens are free to associate as they like. Thus, libertarians are free to adopt a code of conduct. However, they are not free to impose the libertarian code in conflict with either the-objective-truth or public integrity. Late 16^th century French standards for youth reflect an uncivil civilization relative to today’s ideas on freedom of expression, I doubt George Washington actually agreed with all the standards. See mountvernon.org/george-washington/rules-of-civility.

Kuznicki claims such collectivism was “an exercise in liberty” that is obsolete to libertarians. He erroneously claims that the Founders used the constitution to define the laws on which members of the collective are chosen, and the laws are based on “classical republicanism” rather than individualism. In classical republicanism, “Laws were well-chosen insofar as the most virtuous members of the collective did the choosing. To live under the subjection of a foreign power . . . was therefore a great evil.” Non-virtuous domination by outsiders was not “liberty.” The preamble presents the purpose and goals, and the articles are intended to execute justice; if not, they are to be amended by the people.

Kuznicki refers us to oll.libertyfund.org/titles/constant-the-liberty-of-ancients-compared-with-that-of-moderns-1819, where we read “the abbe de Mably, can be regarded as the representative of the system which, according to the maxims of ancient liberty, demands that the citizens should be entirely subjected in order for the nation to be sovereign, and that the individual should be enslaved for the people to be free.” Constant seemed to think a difference between ancient and modern provision of “political liberty” is slavery: The ancients had slaves to take care of commerce while citizens directly politicked but the moderns elect representatives to exercise political power. Constant: “Individual liberty . . . is the true modern liberty. Political liberty is its [indispensable] guarantee.” However, elected representatives exercise “arbitrary supremacy over individuals, and therefore, “it is civil liberty which I claim, along with other forms of political liberty.”

“But governments have new duties; the progress of civilization, the changes brought by the centuries require from the authorities greater respect for customs, for affections, for the independence of individuals.” Money and commerce free the individual from national conflicts. “In the kind of liberty of which we are capable, the more the exercise of political rights leaves us the time for our private interests, the more precious will liberty be to us.” In the interest of freedom to pursue private interests, “let us ask the authorities to keep within their limits. Let them confine themselves to being just.” Herein lies the failure of libertarianism: The libertarian would trust government for justice so that he or she may pursue the happiness personally perceived.

At this point, I suggest that Constant substantially drew from Machiavelli’s The Prince, 1517, perhaps assuming that readers would take that for granted. Naturally, we share that resource in 2017. Second, we have the benefit of Abraham Lincoln’s 1861 thought, on evidence that was obvious to him upon the threat of war, that justice comes from a willing people rather than theism or government, the notorious partnership depicted as Chapter XI Machiavellianism. He asked the Confederate States of America, “Why should there not be a patient confidence in the ultimate justice of the people? Is there any better or equal hope in the world?”

With the modification that in republicanism an informed public has the civic virtue to vote for representatives who will fulfill a continually improved constitution, self-governance can be a reality. The constitutional amendments would come from neither representatives’ arrogance nor dissidents’ dominance, but from the super-majority of people who are willing to discover the-objective-truth as the basis for civic morality. And to order civic interests according to the purpose and goals stated in the preamble to the constitution for the USA as viewed by modern people. For example, “more perfect unity,” perhaps referencing the states, might be equivocated to “more perfect integrity,” meaning both wholeness and understanding. Thereby, the private happiness Constant described might become an achievable possibility for the willing faction of We the People of the United States. Dissidents might steadily reform to the civic culture or suffer constraint from continually increasing justice under the rule of law.

John Jay’s Federalist 2 point about unity in the people seems like propaganda. True, the American English was more uniform than the language of Great Britain. And 99% of free citizens were factional Protestants. Most of them had been British Americans before they changed their style from colonists to statesmen, so they were accustomed to common law and Blackstone. But they objected to administration and adjudication from afar. However, only 5% of free citizens could vote. The natives, slaves, pacifists, and loyalists were dissidents, perhaps 40% of the population. And even among the 60% statesman, only 2/3 supported the change from statesman to We the People of the United States who agree to the purpose and goals stated in the preamble. There is evidence today that the willing vs dissident division is still 2/3:1/3. For example, 2/3 of citizens do not think taxes should support abortion for fun. (A term created by MWW.) That John Jay’s advocacy was for a classical republican plan is arguable, since the constitution he was defending was without theism. Theism was introduced by the 1^st Congress, when it hired chaplains for their benefit at the people’s expense a couple months after their March 4, 1789 seating with only 10 of 13 free and independent states having joined the USA.

In quoting Frederick Douglass, Kuznicki could have chosen to encourage Americans to use the preamble to the constitution for the USA to order civic morality. Douglass said, “the Constitution is a GLORIOUS LIBERTY DOCUMENT. Read its preamble, consider its purposes. Is slavery among them? [Let] me ask . . . if the Constitution were intended to be . . .a slave-holding instrument, why neither slavery, slaveholding, nor slave can anywhere be found in it.” Is there an American who would blame Phil Beaver for lamenting Kuznicki’s slight to my country and the people who live here? Every American has the opportunity to choose the agreement proposed in the preamble or be a dissident. I count Kuznicki a dissident, wrong as I may be.

Not only that, Kuznicki has a lot of nerve to judge George Washington and Frederick Douglass. After all, Douglass praised the preamble which George Washington presaged on June 8, 1783. Washington presided at the preamble’s creation. Under the light of the preamble, Kuznicki might benefit from self-examination.

Phil Beaver does not “know” the-indisputable-facts. He trusts and is committed to the-objective-truth of which most is undiscovered and some is understood. He is agent for A Civic People of the United States, a Louisiana, education non-profit corporation. See online at promotethepreamble.blogspot.com.