March 18, 2018

Phil Beaver seeks to collaborate on the-objective-truth, which can only be discovered. The comment box below invites readers to write.

"Civic" refers to citizens who collaborate for responsible freedom more than for the city.

A personal paraphrase of the June 21, 1788 preamble:  We the civic citizens of nine of the thirteen United States commit-to and trust-in the purpose and goals stated herein --- integrity, justice, collaboration, defense, prosperity, liberty, and perpetuity --- and to cultivate limited services to us by the USA. I want to collaborate with other citizens on this paraphrase, yet would always preserve the original, 1787, text.   

Our Views (theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/opinion/our_views/article_2c4dd192-2793-11e8-9e76-47426542cb95.html)

I agree with The Advocate personnel, for now. But after a couple years’ collaboration to benefit from the-objective-truth, a state constitutional convention may be essential.

After 229 years of struggle, it seems that the USA needs to change from conflict for dominant opinion to collaboration to discover and benefit from the-objective-truth. The citizens of Louisiana may lead the way.

The-objective-truth can only be discovered. The-objective-truth responds to none of imagination, belief, reason, doctrine, or force. Events may be altered by opinion, but the consequences conform to the-objective-truth. For example, humankind will never know the consequences if Bush II had not invaded Iraq, but what’s happening does not seem preferable.

  

Politicians will begin to collaborate for the people to benefit from the-objective-truth as soon as citizens call their representatives and demand the reform. Thus, I paraphrase The Advocate personnel’s conclusion: responsibility for reform is on us.

Reform is needed because the transition of government in this country from feudal colonialism, then to British dominance, then to free and independent states, then to the proposed We the People of the United States has, constrained by 17th and 18th century language, morphed into a movement toward European-style social democracy: chaos. Thank goodness twice-voters for President Trump and Vice-President Pence stopped the momentum, but resistance is vicious, and social democrats consider themselves above reproach.

Each human individual has the authority and may develop the power to behave according to personal preference rather than accept someone else’s idea for him or her. When private development leads to fidelity to the-objective-truth, life’s journey may be rewarding both personally and civically: the community may appreciate the person who understands and practices fidelity. With most people practicing fidelity to the-objective-truth, a civic culture may emerge.

However, the individual who is attracted to dissidence or crime or evil or worse is no less in charge of his or her individual energy. Therefore, a civic culture needs statutory justice. The dissident individual will not tolerate arbitrary law. He or she demands statutory law and its enforcement that is based on the-objective-truth. Lobbyists, caucuses, philanthropists, and special-interests have no favor before statutory justice.

I’m writing to my state representatives to ask them to collaborate for Louisianans to benefit from the-objective-truth rather than conflict with other legislators for dominant opinion. Louisiana can develop a culture of statutory justice.

News

End child marriage (Dan Boudreaux) (theadvocate.com/acadiana/news/article_1cbba2a2-2a15-11e8-8d41-1f496a634273.html)

   

I agree with Hoffman's concern about parents and hope Peterson will ponder if not propose procreation licensing as a separate bill.

Sherry Johnson, sponsor of a Florida law protecting girls under 17 from marriage; Valerie Cahill at Hotel Cazan in Mamou; Amanda Parker of the AHA foundation for the defense of women’s rights; and state Rep. Karen Carter Peterson, D-New Orleans are commendable for “End Child Marriage by 2020.” I would not want to lessen their cause its success.

The article did not mention it, but some girls’ bodies produce viable ova but are not sufficiently developed for gestation and delivery. Therefore, some countries encourage abortion for pregnant, pubescent girls; theguardian.com/global-development-professionals-network/2015/may/14/mexico-to-parguay-it-is-simple-access-to-safe-abortion-saves-lives.

Teen pregnancy is a world-wide concern; ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4852976/.

The human body takes about 25 years to completely construct the wisdom parts of the brain, and giving a few years for experience and observations to prepare a person for fidelity, a marital bond might mature for parenthood during the thirties. Then, a monogamous couple may qualify for procreation. A civic culture might have procreation licensing to further protect children.

Both ending marriage under age 17 and procreation licensing promote statutory justice based on the-objective-truth more than emotionalism, compassion, and heartfelt opinion.

  

Other forums

William A. Galston, “Populism’s Challenge to Democracy”, Wall Street Journal, March 17-18, 2018, page A11, wsj.com/articles/populisms-challenge-to-democracy-1521239697.

Galston reviews social democracy’s chaos in Europe juxtaposed against “liberal democracy.” I prefer my proposal: private liberty with civic morality.

Galston reviews Western developments. “Hungary’s Prime Minister Viktor Orban is committed to what he calls “illiberal democracy,” defining “national identity in exclusionary ethnic and religious terms.” Poland, the Czech Republic, Slovakia and Austria have similar thoughts. Defining borders does not threaten liberal democracy. “Threats to core liberal institutions—the free press, independent civil society, constitutional courts and the rule of law—are . . . threats to the republic. [Populism’s] effort to place these controversies beyond legitimate debate itself weakens liberal democracy.” It’s economics: “A globalized, urban economy . . . serves the interests of elites everywhere and of most people in developing countries, but [hurts] the working and middle classes in developed economies.” And immigration exacerbates the economic woes including security threats. Can many Muslims assimilate? “. . . the British say their cherished National Health Service is being overwhelmed.” The poor and middle class feel vulnerable. “Elites’ enthusiasm for open societies is running up against public demands for economic, cultural and political stability.”

Then Galston shifts to the USA. “Populism accepts the principles of popular sovereignty and majoritarian democracy” but rejects the constraints of constitutionalism. Galston confuses me with “majorities from working their will.” Is he referring to diverse coalitions of minorities as majorities? “While liberal democrats typically understand “we the people” in civic terms—fellow citizens regardless of religion, customs, race, ethnicity and national origin—populists distinguish between “real” people and others, often on ethnic and religious lines, and between “the people” and the elites.” Galston missed that We the People of the United States agree to the preamble, separating themselves as civic people who are opposed to dissidents to justice. In other words, the “we the people” divides people who reject the preamble’s agreement. The division can be lessened by collaboration to benefit from the-objective-truth rather than competition for dominant opinion and elitism. “The populist conception of “the people” as a homogeneous population is contrary to fact.” And neither pluralism nor compromise offers remedy.

“Defenders of liberal democracy must respond when populists move to undermine freedom of the press, weaken constitutional courts, concentrate power in the executive, or marginalize groups of citizens based on ethnicity, religion or national origin. This requires a three-part plan of battle:

First, focus relentlessly on identifying and countering genuine threats to liberal institutions, while at the same time working for political reforms to restore their ability to act effectively.

Second, make peace with national sovereignty. Nations can put their interests first without threatening liberal democratic institutions and norms.

Third, pursue inclusive economic growth—that is, policies to improve well-being across demographic lines, including class and geography. Allowing the highest strata of society to commandeer most of the gains from growth is a formula for endless conflict.

The events of the past quarter-century have challenged the view that history moves inexorably in one direction. Liberal democracy is not the “end of history”—nothing is. Historical inevitability will not determine liberal democracy’s fate. Our political choices will.”

We can and may collaborate to benefit from the-objective-truth and thereby establish private liberty with civic morality. Constitutionalism and capitalism are essential, but, elitism aside, the barbaric laws that promote poverty must be amended. We the people may develop a better future by practicing the agreement that is offered in the preamble to the constitution for the USA, practicing fidelity to the-objective-truth, and requiring elected and appointed officials to join “we the people.”

Rebecca Newberger Goldstein, “Our Moment of Truth”, Wall Street Journal, March 17-18, 2018, page C1, wsj.com/articles/truth-isnt-the-problemwe-are-1521124562.

I want to respond to Rebecca Goldstein’s comprehensive essay on truth. I introduce an old phrase but with hyphens: the-objective-truth. The-objective-truth can only be discovered, perhaps in several steps. For example, ships can’t fall off “the ends of the earth.”

From Agathon’s speech in Plato’s “Symposium,” I paraphrase: Fellow citizens who agree to collaborate to discover the-objective-truth neither impose nor tolerate coercion/force. “Suffering” Socrates’ method would be a self-imposition since Socrates asserted that his only wisdom was that he knew he did not know the-objective-truth, again my paraphrase.

But Dr. Goldstein seems to be attributing to twice-voters for Donald Trump and Mike Pence responsibility for a surge in post-truth. What fellow citizens may be experiencing is Donald Trump’s innovation on Matthew 7:6, unabashedly protecting presidential integrity in a community that lies, effecting post-truth.

Late in the essay, Goldstein seems to confuse truth with objective truth, asserting, “[Once we allow postmodernists to dismiss] objective truth . . . dominance and subordination constitute all that is human. [Terms] such as “evidence” and “scientific method” are mere bids for power.” Later, she notes, “Like many sophists, Thrasymachus is dismissive of . . . objective truth, most especially when it comes to . . . justice.” Neither “truth” nor “objective truth” seems to appreciate the-objective-truth.

Civic citizens need not “confront each other.” Albert Einstein, in 1941, informed us that (in my paraphrase) civic citizens collaborate in order to lessen pain, sorrow, and death. In justice, “[collaboration to discover the-objective-truth] has a further characteristic. The concepts which it uses to build up its coherent systems are not expressing emotions. For the [civic collaborator], there is only “being,” but no wishing, no valuing, no good, no evil; no goal” beyond discovery. See Albert Einstein, “The Laws of Science and the Laws of Ethics,” online at samharris.org/blog/item/my-friend-einstein/.

“Perhaps modern life has so unsettled traditional identities that many of us have nothing better to fall back upon than the crude claims of politics.” But fellow-citizens may collaborate to discover and benefit from the-objective-truth. Thereby, civic citizens may mutually establish comprehensive safety and security; private liberty with civic morality; human justice; an achievable, better future.

I submitted this as a letter-to-the editor.

Phil Beaver does not “know” the actual-reality. He trusts and is committed to the-objective-truth which can only be discovered. He is agent for A Civic People of the United States, a Louisiana, education non-profit corporation. See online at promotethepreamble.blogspot.com.