March 23, 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_3ce1f39e-27c0-11e8-a6ca-eb55fba104bb.html)

The Advocate personnel insist on awakening my sickest dreams. (I admit, I am just not into adult satisfactions that harm children.)
 
As I read through this editorial my mind built the image of a ship’s captain on the maiden voyage of a giant pleasure cruiser taking on water and saying “After all the risk we accepted to this point, we’re carrying on to the bitter end.” Too late, he calls for safety boats.
 
I commend the legislature to delay action so as to create a task force to weigh the cost to Louisiana of further-competing in the world-wide focus on picking people’s pockets. I’ve visited the casinos from N.O. to Vegas to cruise ships to Monte Carlo (that’s how ignorant I am) and see the variations from the international attractions to the local hangers-on. Either way, it is not a pretty experience.
 
A few decades ago, anyone who questioned cigarette smoking was blasted with violent rhetoric. In 2018, people are debating banning smoking on sidewalks! People know that breathing second-hand smoke outdoors can kill the bystander. People know that gambling is ruinous.
 
It’s time for gambling to have economic evaluation that address the-objective-truth. How much does gambling cost the children of the state of Louisiana? Here, 50% or 548,000 children live in low income families; nccp.org/profiles/LA_profile_6.html. How does state-sponsored gambling affect them?
 
I think these are the kinds of questions a responsible press researches and poses to the Legislature.

  

Today’s thought, G.E. Dean (Psalms 57:1 CJB), The Advocate, March 23, 2018, 7B.

“Show me favor, God, show me favor; for in you I have taken refuge. Yes, I will find refuge in the shadow of your wings until the storms have passed.”

Dean says, “Take refuge in the Lord, he cares for you.”

David and Dean seem egocentric to me.

Early in my eighth decade---just a couple weeks ago---I articulated that each human being may, during his or her first three decades develop fidelity to the-objective-truth. As he or she practices comprehensive fidelity, he or she may develop a commitment: In every thought, every word, and every action, I will neither initiate nor tolerate harm to or from anyone.

I am happy to have this commitment on March 23, 2018. However, I am mad as hell that it was not encouraged in me, by example and coaching, as my experiences and observations accumulated. The culture I was brought up in inculcated obeisance to higher powers: mom and dad’s Baptist god and “we the people” instead of We the People of the United States who trust-in and commit-to the preamble to the constitution of the USA. I did not even realize the preamble offers an agreement until about my sixth decade! Good grief! I was reared in the country of denial: no one knows their god (as far as I can observe). At least they don't know their afterdeath.

 
Likewise, I do not know the-objective-truth, but I spend part of my energy trying to discover the-objective-truth. I now articulate: I possess the human authority to behave so as to neither initiate nor tolerate harm to or from anyone. That is, neither anyone’s god nor anyone’s government nor any person can usurp my human authority to behave.
 
I appreciate all the fellow-persons who have helped me articulate these ideas and reach this commitment. I appreciate The Advocate and G. E. Dean for the motivation to make this statement. However, I commend The Advocate personnel to either move Dean’s entry to the eatplaylive section or provide a balancing thought briefer than the ones I post at cipbr.blogspot.com.

Letters

Civic justice (Sammonds) (theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/opinion/letters/article_6459b93e-2d60-11e8-a0dc-9f6e35fa9991.html)

The black caucus’s stated purpose is to do everything they can to favor black-skinned people. Since blacks suffer a tradition of vigilante justice, there’s a lot of crime in some black neighborhoods. However, many black people are civic citizens rather than vigilantes.

If the black caucus can make it hard for civic citizens to convict criminals, the black caucus may claim that it has helped black people. However, black people are the victims of black-vigilante crime, and some are civic citizens. If black civic citizens go along with the black caucus, they are hurting themselves. Better to be a civic citizen than a black-caucus victim.

I have heard some black Americans claim that the civic agreement that is offered in the preamble to the constitution for the USA was not intended for them. However, Frederick Douglass asserted that it is intended for black people in his July 5, 1852 speech before the President of the United States; rbscp.lib.rochester.edu/2945. He was railing against internal slave trade sixty-four years after the people’s delegates in nine states had ratified the 1787 Constitution, establishing the USA and forty-four years after the African slave importation had ended. He rightfully shamed the generation that was extending the awful, internal slave market. He also was claiming civic citizenship.

Black civic citizens in Louisiana may ask, “If I cannot collaborate for civic morality in my community, city, state, and country now: When?” And, “If I cannot collaborate as the civic citizen who is specified in the preamble to the constitution for the USA, what civic agreement would I commit to?” Every person has the authority to consider being a civic citizen or not. The black caucus has no standing when it comes to individual authority respecting personal values and commitments.

I served on a jury one time in my life. The plaintiff was white and clearly at fault in an industrial accident. One juror had the conviction that big corporations ought to pay. She extended the discussion every chance she got, closing her arguments with “Just give him the money.” The rest of the jury argued that the plaintiff caused the accident. Because only ten votes were needed, justice was possible.

Thank you, Ron Sammonds for your letter and the bill number. I have written to my representatives asking them to kill SB 243; legiscan.com/LA/bill/SB243/2018.

    

Other forums

libertylawsite.org/2018/03/22/democratic-persuasion-and-the-weakness-of-social-democracy

Scholars and politicians seem confused with statements like, “[The] Russian intervention raises questions about the nature of democracy. Much more plausible . . . conspiracy accusations have been a staple . . . since the beginning of the republic.” I think the “democracy” connection to “the republic” in Professor McGinnis’ statement is this: direct voting reveals the democratic majority, but the republic involves an electoral college that may elect the minority candidate. Thus, the voting majority may not win the election. However, each citizen has and many neglect human authority.

Europeans and other aliens who don’t understand the American dream don’t understand American elections. The American dream is private liberty with civic morality. That’s an unfulfilled opportunity that originates from American settlers, who sought freedom-from European oppression. Some settlers discovered the liberty-to pursue personal preferences rather than the happiness elite politicians imagined for them.

Quite naturally, Europeans, from whom America won independence do not understand the historical facts. America was a mixture of colonies and territories under the colonization of several European countries and indigenous peoples such as Mexicans. Perceiving enslavement by England, thirteen eastern-seaboard colonies changed their style to states. Under a confederation that was endorsed by only 40% of inhabitants, they waged war for independence from England, some intending to also emancipate the slaves. England agreed that the thirteen states were free and independent. However, the confederation of states did not function. Therefore, twelve of them created the 1787 Constitution, which only 2/3 of delegates signed. It offered governance by civic people in their states. “Civic” designates those who trusted-in and committed-to the preamble.

Therein are further significant departures from unity: 1/3 of 1787 delegates of twelve states were so dissident they did not sign, and the people paid little attention to the agreement they were offered in the preamble. In 1788, 2/3 of representatives of nine states ratified the constitution, leaving four states to join the established USA. One state joined in time for ten states to reinstitute Blackstone but with American factional Protestantism instead of the English Church to “advantage a distinctive class of rulers” despite the signers’ intentions. Americans may move to another state but cannot escape “freedom of religion” when freedom of thought is needed and wanted. Yet the purpose and goals stated in the preamble are in the memes of many 2018 Americans. It is up to 2018 people who want the American dream stated above to collaborate using the preamble to the US constitution instead of the American religion to establish the American republic at last.

Professor McGinnis makes the point that social democracy is foreign to the American republic, but so is Chapter XI Machiavelianism. The signers of the 1787 Constitution are the American fathers and the leaders in the preceding decade and following decade include dissidents such as British loyalists, social democrats, socialists, communists, communitarians and other citizens who oppose private liberty with civic morality.

“The genius of the United States Constitution was to create additional protections beyond democracy through individual rights and limitations of the power of the national government.” What’s missing so far is that most American individuals seek higher power rather than accept their human, individual authority to collaborate for civic justice using the preamble and the-objective-truth.

Amy L. Wax, “The University of Denial”, Wall Street Journal, March 23, 2018, page A17, wsj.com/articles/the-university-of-denial-1521760098

How about the nation of denial?

Wax does law professors no favors with her secret agendum, whatever it is. Somebody on pjmedia.com/instapundit/292027/ thinks she’s really writing about harm to minority students and refers readers to papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2890328, by Gail Heriot.

But I’m interested in some deeper hidden secrecies: A more apt caption to Wax’s composition is “The Nation of Denial.” Consider: if “freedom of religion” went away, America could have responsible thought. If “our democracy” went away, America could nourish its constitutional republic. If arrogant judical opinion went away Americans could collaborate to discover the-objective-truth. If arrogant, judicial opinion went away the-objective-truth could be used to increase statutory justice.

If the Congressional Black Caucus would adopt the agreement that is offered in the preamble to the constitution for the USA, more black Americans might become civic citizens rather than “african americans”. If most law professors adopted the civic agreement that is offered in the preamble, they could focus on collaborating to discover the-objective-truth; some waste scholarly studies on questions like whether or not James Madison until 1836 revised his 1787 notes from Philadelphia.

Most professors would know to consider the human equality question from the viable ovum and healthy spermatozoon rather than at age thirty with understanding and intent to responsibly live a full life or not. Only by example and good coaching can students prepare for age thirty. The ideas need to be publically discussed, but they are suppressed by government under government’s god, whatever that is. Religion and reality almost never mix, and the-objective-truth cannot be discovered---is often opposed---by religious belief. The tragedy is that many Americans have come to believe political power yields to their personal god. Neither government nor its god can usurp the individual’s innate authority to behave.

The belief that religion determines the-objective-truth has plagued America since April-May 1789 when Congress granted itself divinity by hiring American factional-Protestant ministers in order to compete with Parliament and its Church of England clergy. Law professors have helped maintain this pretension when they could help separate church from state and vice versa. The Greece v Galloway (2014) opinion is an example of tyranny over the lives of civic citizens.

My guess is that Wax is writing for lawyerly debate and could not care less whether civic citizens collaborate for a better future or not. I work for a better future.

Law professors may ask their person: Am I doing all I can to collaborate with fellow citizens to discover the-objective-truth? If the answer is no, they have the personal authority to reform.

 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.