The free press represses integrity

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, state, nation, or other institution.

A personal paraphrase of the June 21, 1788 preamble, the USA Constitution’s most neglected legal statement:  Willing 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 the children --- and to cultivate limited USA services to us and our states. I want to collaborate with other citizens on this paraphrase, yet would preserve the original, 1787, text, unless it is amended by the people.   

Our Views

May 24 (http://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/opinion/our_views/article_8e90c00c-5df4-11e8-a210-f7abec144653.html)

(I never voted for Bobby Jindal and don’t expect to change my mind. I am a fiscal conservative and individually responsible liberal: I work to avoid subjugation to bureaucrats, like saying, “thank you for civic justice”.)

It would have been embarrassing if The Advocate personnel had not recognized Bobby Jindal’s forever push for high paying jobs to keep Louisiana children in Louisiana; http://www.wtvm.com/story/16666027/the-governor-is-pitching-a-plan-to-make-louisiana-more-competitive.

However, it is embarrassing not to recognize a serious problem:  Louisiana education does not provide candidates for the jobs; https://www.businessreport.com/business/louisiana-economic-development-stixis. “Stixis blames the state’s lack . . . finding talent through a workforce recruitment program. Higher education leaders say K-12 could do a better job training students in the basics of coding, and tech leaders simply say the pool of workers is too small.”

LSU’s President F. King Alexander seems to partner with Mayor Broome (with her church and dialogues on racism platform); http://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/news/article_7fcf5670-2545-11e7-baa9-7f784d65ef3f.html and http://www.lsu.edu/manship/news/2017/05/capstone-colloquium.php. And LSU spends too much money on “social science,” the art of planning, gathering, and manipulating statistics so as to justify the policy the study sponsor has in mind; https://www.nationalaffairs.com/publications/detail/policy-based-evidence-making. For example, if, as a political scientist, you want to debate whether virtue is inspired by reason versus faith in a personal god, all the professor need to do is omit integrity---the controlling variable in developing virtue.

I do not want another penny much less dime of my tax dollars spent on Alexander’s “movements”; http://www.lsu.edu/mediacenter/news/2016/09/26momenetormovement.eb.php. If a university president wants to pitch social morality, all he needs do is omit civic morality from the agenda.

If a hometown newspaper wants to pitch social democracy, all the employees need do is avoid the agreement offered by We the People of the United States. Thanks to an erroneous first Congress, the media relish the unfettered freedom to publish irresponsibly. They make plenty money, but I think they beg woe for . . . (the people?).

Letters

Israel (Bander) (http://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/opinion/letters/article_c2c81e44-5f91-11e8-90e6-dfed02b98223.html)

Every human has the individual power, the individual energy, and the individual authority (IPEA) to develop integrity. Many people are too busy for integrity. Many don’t even know what it is.

What motivates Palestinians to cooperate with Hamas? Is it Chapter XI Machiavellianism? Do political regimes partner with the church in America? Is Together Baton Rouge a minister’s coalition making a bid to partner with politicians?

Why do American scholars debate whether civic morality derives from reason or from faith? Do they cooperate with Machiavellian exclusion of the individual opportunity to pursue integrity?

Integrity involves all of: the work to understand the-objective-truth; the work to learn how to benefit; compliance for benefit; public expression of understanding; listening to public dissidence and responding; and alertness to discovery that demands new understanding. Stephen L. Carter (1996) did not express integrity.

Integrity (Salmon)( http://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/opinion/letters/article_95af75ea-5f89-11e8-a457-c3f5c1b0ad51.html)

Salmon expresses social democracy’s bid to destroy the American republicanism. It’s a European project, and American “progressives” fall prey failures Europe only begins to recognize. But they have no idea what American republicanism means.

Today’s WSJ includes a scholarly op-ed Jason Willick, “[James Davison Hunter] The Man Who Discovered ‘Culture wars’” (https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-man-who-discovered-culture-wars-1527286035).

“[Hunter] doubts that reason and science are any better suited than fundamentalist religion to provide a stable basis for morality” Willick omits integrity. He commits a traditional error.

I am a fiscal conservative and responsible liberal and think America can be great, at last.

Civic exclusion (Stewart Jr.) (http://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/opinion/letters/article_cd1c91a4-5fa0-11e8-9c97-bf93c94aae00.html)

Our work promotes the civic agreement that is stated in the preamble to the constitution for the USA. Collaboration is better than asking people to leave.

Only 2/3 of delegates to the Philadelphia convention by 12/13 states signed the 1787 Constitution. Political regimes have fought that first legal sentence, an offered civic agreement, ever since. Patrick Henry and others opposed the legal change from a confederation of states to a nation with limited powers to serve the civic people---those who trust-in and commit-to the preamble---in their states with their state constitutions.

Nine of the twelve responsible states ratified the 1787 Constitution, establishing the USA, on June 21, 1788. The nine hoped the dissident four free and independent states would join the USA. One did before operations began on March 4, 1789 with ten states who were members of the USA.

Political regimes since then have repressed the legal power of the preamble. If the dissidents had had their way, the preamble would state "We the United States," rather than "We the People of the United States." That should convince readers of the legal status of the preamble.

Over 300 years of scholarly work has been done to debate whether civic morality may be attained by reason or by faith. The literature omits integrity. Almost every elite group suppresses integrity. The preamble promotes integrity by inviting civic people to collaborate so as to provide exemplary living that may motivate and inspire dissidents to reform rather than be incarcerated, executed or leave the country.

Our group is hosting a public meeting, "Individual Independence Day," at Goodwood library, Conference Room A, at 10:00 AM until noon on June 21. We ask participants, "What does the preamble mean to you," and what event in US history most bothers you? See details at The Advocate calendar, June 21, 10:00 AM. Readers are invited.

Education curriculum (Pam Goodner) (theadvocate.com07dffc68904d.html)

Goodner’s perhaps justifiably self-promoting letter nonetheless instills hope and tentative enthusiasm. I want to learn more and am.

It seems like Eureka Math is for K-8, and through 12th grade it’s algebra and beyond; https://www.louisianabelieves.com/resources/library/k-12-math-year-long-planning. Perhaps Wit & Wisdom is in groups of 3 – 4 years for K-12. I want to study the various packets more.

Missing from Goodner’s praise and pride was civics, perhaps 9-12 only; https://www.louisianabelieves.com/resources/search?indexCatalogue=global-content-search&searchQuery=civics&wordsMode=0. I noticed a unit on suffrage and do not tentatively trust it.

I reviewed one element, https://www.dbqproject.com/, and think I can learn from it. I will spend some time with it and then write about it. My first impression is that the student who uses the method but finds documents independently rather than follows the provided text may acquire my hope: the intent to develop integrity. For example, I think the Civil War was the product of a standard interpretation of the Holy Bible (that Africans if not blacks were universally subjugated by sin). The declaration of secession tacitly makes that claim in politically correct language: “more erroneous religious belief,” and some minister's sermons in the 1850s confirm my impressions.

One thing I would hope students would come away with is that the President of the USA is first a citizen and ought to trust-in and commit to the civic agreement that is offered in the preamble to the constitution for the USA. As a human being, the president still has the individual power, the individual energy, and the individual authority (IPEA) to develop integrity and act accordingly. We the People of the United States maintain the laws and institutions that constrain him and other elected and appointed officials according to the USA’s well specified and documented republican form of government. All officials have the opportunity to employ IPEA to develop integrity, and that includes teachers like Goodner.

The preamble is the first legal statement in the constitution, and it makes the claim that a limited federal government is formed to serve the people in their states. Ratification of the preamble on June 21, 1788, divided 9 of the confederation of thirteen states that was ratified on January 14, 1784, with every free and independent state named. The USA was thereby established, and the nine hoped the other four would not remain free and independent. One state joined, so ten states started operating the USA on March 4, 1789. Over the following year and a half the remaining dissident states joined the USA. Today, there are fifty states, and the idea of secession without the military power to accomplish the separation has been put to rest.

The citizen who cares not about the agreement that is offered in the preamble, whether by ignorance, resistance, opposition, or evil is a dissident citizen: civil dissidence against the preamble's agreement is a legal status, even though the US Supreme Court has never been challenged to say so. A civil dissident who makes demands but does not offer to collaborate according to the preamble ought not vote.

Columns

No writers for integrity (Jason Willick, “[James Davison Hunter] The Man Who Discovered ‘Culture wars’”) (https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-man-who-discovered-culture-wars-1527286035)

Mr. Willick’s books reviews are hubristric representation of social democracy, which has a clear if unstated yearn to end the American-republican form of government: governance by a civic people.

Some of my counters to or concerns about Willick’s claims include: Protestants in Tennessee ran their own stills during prohibition; Judeo-Christianity produced “African-American Christianity”--- whatever the believer says it is---let alone the folly of abortion control; denominational wars repress believers’ discovery and acceptance of their individual power, individual energy, and individual authority (IPEA) to develop integrity; it is up to the individual to recognize the tyranny against his humanity; a civic people accept IPEA and develop integrity, regardless of both dissidents against integrity and culture wars; Otto von Bismarck, born 1815, read about culture struggles, such as Agathon’s statement that a civic person neither initiates nor tolerates harm to or from anyone---in other words, he did not think of anything new; if there are truth’s rather than lies from the present progressives, the honest truth’s of the past were no less objectionable, in other words, only the-objective-truth is reliable; Willick’s list of Hunter’s “cultural skirmishes” traditionally and progressively excludes integrity; fidelity to “things that help make sense of the world” is developed by integrity; “secular enlightenment” seems a contradiction; a free market is the only viable economy as observed from the existing USA laws that favor the wealthy at the expense of the nation’s children; it makes no sense for the losers of a political election to belittle the winners; I appreciate Mr. Hunter’s counter to citizen Trump’s claim that there were some good people on both sides in the Charlottesville violence but otherwise Hunter erred to mention fellow-citizen Trump; no individual has the knowledge to judge a fellow citizen’s path to either integrity or injustice; recognition that some humans have black skin seems solely the responsibility of people with black skin, much as every human may accept IPEA or not; again, America’s elite enjoy wealth at the expense of America’s children, and that is barbaric; the social democrats’ immaturity towards collaboration with a civic people may reform when individual social democrats perceive they are losing their individual chance at a human lifetime or their one chance to live; Hunter and Willick could consider Albert Einstein’s 1941 message that physics and ethics come from the same source (science is a study and physics and its progeny is the object of study). Einstein’s only example was that civic citizens don’t lie to each other so as to communicate.

In the statement “[Hunter] doubts that reason and science are any better suited than fundamentalist religion to provide a stable basis for morality” Willick and perhaps Hunter omit integrity. They commit a traditional error.

The column seems a scholarly ad for Mr. Hunter’s coming book, “Science and the Good,” “a story of tragic failure.” I think Mr. Hunter invites ridicule by the accessible ideas expressed by both Albert Einstein and Plato’s Agathon. A civic people develop integrity and integrity motivates fidelity to the-objective-truth.

I hope the reader has the IPEA to understand my comments, which are intended to help establish an achievable, better future, based on promoting integrity rather than either progressivism or tradition.

Thoughts from one of the deplorables (E. J. Dionne) (https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/no-one-is-an-animal/2018/05/20/3deab1e0-5af6-11e8-8836-a4a123c359ab_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.85a33040f7c3)

If Dionne used his individual authority to develop integrity more than honesty, he’d understand deplorables like me.

Some people, like Dionne, don’t even accept individual authority---try to pawn it off on a god, political opinion, or government. But deplorables hold that every human has individual power, individual energy, and individual authority (IPEA). Some use IPEA to develop integrity and some use it for infidelity. It seems Dionne made a choice.

I am willing to stop all illegal immigration in order to lessen the number of animals who are getting in; for example, the bloodthirsty MS-13 members President Trump spoke about. I’m deplorable enough to think that some of the pope’s emissaries intend to harm Americans.

Philadelphia tyranny (editorial staff) (https://www.wsj.com/articles/suffer-the-little-children-1527029941) May 23, 2018, page A14

Re: WSJ, May 23, 2018, page A14, “Suffer the Little Children”

Separation of church and state works both ways: the church either conforms to civic morality or suffers statutory justice and the state does not interfere with a civically moral church. But marriage is a civic duty to ova rather than a religious issue. Some religions merely conform to civic morality. The press should have expressed the actual reality long before now.

The morality at stake in this Philadelphia tyranny is not religious at all.

The fact is that a woman has an obligation to perhaps 400 viable ova during her fertile years to 1) protect her body and mind; health and psychology, 2) protect the ova from erroneous conception; in other words, conception that does not assure appreciative care for life and 3) to do all she can to bond with a man who will father the person for life in partnership with her mothering; in other words, a philandering fertile woman is uncivic toward her ova. Adult contracts regarding ova deny human integrity to the personhood of a conception.

Religion does not discover/determine integrity, but a religion may choose integrity.

At stake is each citizen’s opportunity to utilize the individual power, the individual energy, and the individual authority (IPEA) to develop integrity. Can a person hold religious beliefs and serve fellow citizens, or can the state require a citizen to either deny religious beliefs or not serve fellow citizens?

Much is written about the free market of goods. A person should be able to purchase goods from someone who wants to supply them at a price the buyer wants to pay. Likewise, the market of ideas must be free: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marketplace_of_ideas/

The media’s insistence on debating “progressive cultural values” versus religion excludes integrity. This reader is constrained to ask why a free press pushes integrity out of the public debate. What infidelity does the press seek to preserve? The failures of the Supreme Court? That does not suffice.

Like it or not, the press fails integrity.

  

News

Voting 2/3 for integrity (Paul Hannon, “Irish Repeal Abortion Ban In Landslide”) (https://www.wsj.com/articles/voters-in-ireland-repeal-abortion-ban-exit-poll-shows-1527287798)

   

Hannon slants this story as religious reform born in religious conflict.

Catholic-leaning Ireland won independence from England’s Canterbury partnership in 1922. Catholic influence perhaps peaked in 1983’s ban on abortion. Since then, priestly pedophilia world-wide and forcing women to surrender unwanted babies for adoption weakened Catholic influence.

Hannon further pitches perhaps unrecognized acceptance of the-objective-truth as a youth-driven reform and relates it to erroneous LGBT support for gay marriage: same-sex bonding is a choice but same-sex parenting denies the child’s personhood. Hannon overlooks the basis of human integrity: Rather than “everyone deserves a chance of life” every ovum deserves conception by the man and woman who will trust-in and commit-to, for life, the person he and she conceived and his or her offspring.

Religion is not involved in civic obligations to the human ova. The Church claims authority at conception, but civic obligations begin when a man and a woman bond, whether directly or through some technology. The world is facing the actual reality that in the appreciation and development of civic morality the Church, a society for religious morals, has no standing.

These factors obfuscate the actual reality that neither coercion nor force stop “women from terminating their pregnancies,” for reasons only the woman knows. For example, the woman who knows she was impregnated by a known child-abuser may prefer termination. The-objective-truth of terminating pregnancy is that the woman is in charge.

My arguments are grounded in the idea that each individual’s chance for a satisfying life is increased neither by church (coercion) nor government (force) but by human integrity. Each individual has the power, the energy, and the authority (IPEA) to develop integrity.

The vote in Ireland, about 2/3, is a sign that the people are on a deliberate if unrecognized march for integrity. If so, the journey to an attainable, better future can be accelerated by promoting IPEA to develop integrity rather than social opinion, crime, and other ruinous individual pursuits. The people may reform both religion and government to assure each individual information, encouragement, and coaching in the opportunity to develop integrity.

Integrity (Gordon Russell) (http://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/news/politics/legislature/article_f0fd4186-5a23-11e8-a202-2b7a4b652452.html)

   

This is an expression about integrity, as though everyone knows how it differs from honesty.

Collaborators for meetings at EBRP libraries to promote the civic agreement that is offered in the preamble to the constitution for the USA have produced an articulation not previously known to us:  Each human has the individual power, energy, and authority (IPEA) to develop integrity.

First, most people who hear this statement are delighted. Responses include: That’s the way it is. Some leap to the idea that few develop integrity, caught without the time to realize infidelity is inculcated by society. Awareness empowers reform.

With this articulation, anyone who defers to a lesser authority cannot expect another human to yield his or her IPEA to the lesser authority. For example, a person who is proposing civil tyranny cannot expect a civic person to tolerate the proposal. A person who defers to a religion cannot expect a non-believer to be motivated. Someone who stole money because he or she thinks crime pays will not respond to a lawyer who stole someone’s estate. A Supreme Court justice who expresses a false opinion cannot expect a civic citizen to yield even though he or she must bear force. IPEA, while widely unnoticed perhaps as recently as 1700 or even 300 years ago, is so obvious in 2018 its articulation immediately convicts the person who believes in infidelity.

The articulation of IPEA is so powerful that organizations and institutions are compelled upon the announcement to make certain that at least 2/3 of its members accept IPEA.

At my hometown newspaper, The Advocate, personnel have exercised freedom of the press with abandon. However, articulation of IPEA notifies the personnel to reform and the collective entity to reform.

The articulation of IPEA compels Gov. John Bel Edwards to yet veto this shameful act of secrecy.

   

Other fora

https://www.quora.com/What-s-the-most-disturbing-part-about-American-society/answer/Phil-Beaver-1

Unfortunately, American law protects religion, an institution, rather than integrity, a human opportunity.

America, like many other countries, emerged from competitive European colonization aided by African-slave trade. Colonization with slave trade was initially “authorized” by the Vatican, not involving Italy: see Italy and the colonization of the Americas - Wikipedia.

From 1455 to 1763, it was a free-for all, but colonists on the eastern seaboard sensed enslavement by England and began to act for independent governance. In 1774, farmers in Massachusetts marched into Worcester and claimed authority for governance, literally kicking British officials out of their offices and homes. The British never returned to Worcester.

Representatives of all but one of the 13 colonies met in the First Continental Congress and changed their style from colonies to states. They agreed to write state constitutions and to a second congress, but battles motivated them to declare independence. Perceiving too much risk, they negotiated with France to connect their ongoing war with England. France provided both strategy and overwhelming military power for the victory at Yorktown. The states ratified their global status as 13 free and independent states. However, in less than 4 years, it was evident that the confederation of states was too weak. All but one of the states met to strengthen the confederation, but instead negotiated a limited nation to serve the people in their states.

The preamble to the constitution for the USA is the first legal statement therein. It is legal, both because it was ratified by the required nine states and because it legally ended the confederation of states under Blackstone common law and Canterbury theism. In other words, the preamble states “We the People of the United States” rather than “We the United States.” Unlike prior American documents, the 1787 Constitution made no reference to a creator. Willing people in their states authorized a limited central government to serve the people in their states.

However, most persons who comprise the people never accepted individual power, energy, and authority (IPEA) to collaborate for the civic morality that is specified in the preamble’s agreement. Unfortunately, respect for the preamble has declined since then do to the actions of political regimes.

The first Congress, representing only 10 states, unconstitutionally hired ministers to serve Congress at the people’s expense. Congress elected divinity on par with Parliament’s divinity except under factional American Protestantism instead of Canterbury. In England, the church-state partnership is constitutional, with a specified fraction of Parliament being ministers. In America, the church-state partnership is unofficial, but nonetheless powerful. It has evolved to Judeo-Christianity, specifically Judeo-Catholicism, as represented by the religions of members of the U. S. Supreme Court: 3 Jews and 6 Catholics, one attending a Protestant church.

Whereas in 1790, free citizens, 80% of inhabitants, 5% of whom could vote, were 99% factional Protestants, in 2018, only 14% of inhabitants attend the traditional churches and 100% of free citizens may vote. Freedom of religion rather than freedom to develop integrity is tyranny.

The most disturbing law in America is the First Amendment’s clauses that protect religion, an institution, rather than integrity, an individual opportunity. I work to change that. I write to learn, so please comment.

https://www.quora.com/Are-we-a-society-of-hate-or-just-without-love

The question: Are we a society of hate or just without love?

My response addresses three aspects of the question. Society is usually erroneous toward the individual; in civic morality mutual appreciation is preferable to love, which is often overboard or unwanted; and, unfortunately, “hate” is expressed in religious scripture, for example, “The Holy Bible.” Separation of religious scripture and other social coercion from civic discussion is essential to the hope for human justice.

There can be no justice when one party, either secretly or publicly, falsely holds the other guilty of hate. Usually, the other has no opportunity to express appreciation for human justice, if it exists. I know of no ameliorating arguments for expressions that employ the word “hate.” Opposition to actual hate is valid, but mysterious accusation does not verify hatred. However, the people may develop a civic culture wherein every responsible society flourishes, because some people want particular no-harm social associations. Integrity is essential.

When I was a boy, I was the last choice for sandlot sports teams. When I complained about “bullies” Dad said, “Sock them in the jaw.” Mom said, “Kill them with kindness.” I thought Mom was harsh. As a young adult, I read the complete Romans 12:20, “On the contrary: “If your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink. In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head.” In mid-life, I discussed that sentence with a Jesuit priest. He consulted four references and found no helpful opinion. He concluded that the author did not represent the Jesus he, a Jesuit, believed in, and he had no problem with Phil Beaver’s religion. I think the CJB (Complete Jewish Bible) phrase-translation “shame him” is a fair excuse for the expression, but neither for canonization nor for public collaboration.

The human who employs his or her individual power, energy, and authority (IPEA) to develop integrity does not accept opinion but rather admits to his or her person, “I do not know,” when the-objective-truth has not been discovered, understood, and adopted for use. I used Romans 12:20 in a segment for multiethnic new-employee integrity training for my employer of 35 years, and would use it again in a speech.

Recently, in my eighth decade, I discovered the actual reality of hate put into Jesus’ expressions by some writers. I had long since dismissed the “hate” in Luke 14:26 as Luke’s error rather than “Jesus’ desperate love for my soul,” a minister’s excuse for potential family-ruinous advice. But John’s error in John 15:18-23, came to my attention only a couple weeks ago. I now understand why, beginning my fifth decade, on hearing from my Sunday school teacher that I was a heretic, I dropped out of the Baptist brotherhood rather than yield to his coercion and the class’s indolence. My point that day was that a neighbor does not have to be a Christian to be my neighbor. Being accused of heresy in civic morality is shocking, and for me, intolerable without collaboration!

Each individual may manage the lesser powers a human being faces: society such as religion (coercion), government (force), appetites (banality), and the unknowns (fear). A person who chooses to use IPEA for integrity may gain comfort and hope from religious beliefs without trying to impose them on civic morality. I neither know nor care to speculate on how a believer should manage controversial terms like “hate,” but it is important for believers to know that I employ my IPEA to reject the opinions of Luke and John (and Paul) about Jesus and civic morality. When I do not know the-objective-truth yet have a problem with an opinion, I reject the opinion, taking comfort in the self-admission, “I do not know.”

I’d like to turn your question to: Will we employ mutual appreciation to create an (attainable) civic culture that embraces every responsible association? In such a culture at least 2/3 of members of every society accept IPEA to develop integrity and fidelity to the-objective-truth so as to constrain social dissidents in the hope they will reform.

I think that because these ideas are being expressed, a better future will emerge. I write to learn and would welcome comments.

http://www.libertylawsite.org/book-review/political-philosophy-thoughts-on-strauss-and-machiavelli/#comment-1670156

“All this has ultimately to do with the fundamental question of the right way of life—is it the life of reason alone or the life of morality and faith?”

That sentence reminds me of statistical studies in the modern coercion called “social sciences”. In order to build a statistical case, policymakers omit the controlling variable. In this case, perhaps the right way of life is to discover the-objective-truth and do the work to understand how to benefit from the discovery. In a word, the right way of life is integrity.

Thus, a more statistically inclusive question is: Is the right way of life the life of reason alone, or morality and faith, or integrity? Why is integrity omitted from this review and related classical philosophy in general?

“Meier’s Strauss shows that Machiavelli’s knowledge of the world—his awareness that it was not created miraculously ex nihilo—is traceable to the Averroists. Their teachings deny creation, providence and the immortality of the soul, and were well known to the educated in Machiavelli’s time.“ Likewise, integrity is neither new nor novel.

“As regards the principle of authority, which commands obedience rather than thought, Machiavelli earned the right to question the “highest authority”—the jealous Biblical God —first by surrendering to it, that is, by taking it with absolute seriousness, and by supporting that authority “with reasons by means of his own reason.” Why is reason adequate when integrity is required? And to what, beyond actual reality or the-objective-truth, does individual authority command obedience?

Why is “the hope of being able to control chance, which is bound up with belief in Gods” tolerated when the-objective-truth exists and is the object of humankind’s noble work? We know this from the ancients as well as from Albert Einstein.

Back to statistics, does “the common good” exclude what the individual desires? Does the individual desire integrity? “Strauss says . . . Machiavelli was clearly aware of “the delusions of immortal glory and of the limitations of the political. Immortal glory is impossible, and what is called immortal glory depends on chance.” Is that actual reality, or an opinion?

In a civic culture, government’s purpose is to develop mutual, comprehensive safety and security so that civic citizens may discover individual power, energy, and authority (IPEA) in order to develop integrity. In a civic culture responsible religions and philosophies flourish according to believers’ preferences. But not all persons develop IPEA for integrity; for example, some believe in crime.

The first sentence of the constitution for the USA, perhaps with the revision from “Unity” to “integrity,” offers an agreement to collaborate for a civic culture, where “civic” refers to mutual justice. The preamble is a legal sentence, which may be used to encourage dissidents to reform. Thus, the civic culture is not a utopia, but is an attainable government that fully recognizes that some persons will use IPEA for immorality.

I doubt anyone can demonstrate that “Machiavelli’s practical science soon became modern science and technology.” In other words it is only an idea, much like “the thoroughgoing intelligibility of the world,” a scholarly distraction. However, perhaps Machiavelli ironically warned the people about the-objective-truth. Perhaps “The Prince,” especially Chapter XI, expresses to the people Machiavelli’s novel dream of an attainable, better future.

People may happily employ IPEA to pursue scholarly opinion. With the articulation of IPEA, they may imagine that other people are developing integrity, and beyond integrity fidelity to the-objective-truth.

Second Post: “Who are Machiavelli’s excellent men? [Men who] know their limitations and . . . equanimity and inner freedom that lead not to the conquest of chance but to independence from it. They ‘rise above chance,’ which ‘will have no power over them, over their minds.’”

At question is the observer’s view of “chance.” By viewing chance to include not only the unknowns of the-objective-truth but the erroneous speculations of men, the individual who uses IPEA to develop integrity is sufficient for every decade of his or her life. Note: IPEA expresses individual power, individual energy, and individual authority; thereby, a person may discover his or her perfected uniqueness; the perfection of his or her unique person.

It takes about three decades for a human infant to acquire the understanding and intent to embark on a full human life. The infant is empowered with curiosity, some more than others. As soon as the baby acquires articulation, he or she may constantly ask, “What’s that?” and retain the response for future benefit. Upon observing the sun at the moment of eclipse, a pre-historic baby might have heard a care-giver respond, “God stopped the sun from shining.” However, the departing circularity of the moon’s projection might imprint the baby’s mind for future reflection and creative work. As a man or woman, the former baby may do the work to discover the eclipse. Recalling the mystery-response from the past, his or her attention to influences of gods may lessen. In some cases, regard for the care-giver lessens. Thus, “excellent men” have curiosity, creativity, and serenity with the benefits of discovery. In other words, “excellent men” develop fidelity to the-objective-truth.

“As regards morality, Machiavelli begins, says Strauss, ‘with the observation of the self-contradictions inherent in what men generally and publicly praise.’ A full grasp of those contradictions . . . is what finally silences the call of conscience and the longing for the fully good.”

At question here is the value and purpose of praise. When someone praised me, they were actually pandering to coerce me. I bet people pander their gods, too. Merriam Webster online informs us that “praise” means first “to express a favorable judgment of” and second “to glorify especially by the attribution of perfections.” Either way, the one who praises evaluates: either “favorable judgement” or “attribution of perfections.” I doubt any god likes being judged by people.

Integrity requires open-mindedness to discovery that may negate past judgement. In other words, the god chosen first may not be the-god, and the-god may not like being second choice. The individual who uses his or her IPEA for praise may beware the consequences.

Persons who belittle integrity beg woe. Debating virtue based on reason and/or faith obfuscates integrity. In other words, integrity is the prime variable, and it does not respond to either reason or faith. I don’t think this challenge is philosophical or “political common good”: integrity addresses actual reality. Why is integrity repressed?

“. . . says Strauss, ‘Aristotle teaches as clearly as Machiavelli that most men are bad as well as that all men desire wealth and honor.’ Meier . . . declines to say [the fact] ”that no state regards moral virtue as its end”—might tell us about what is natural to man. Meier argues that Machiavelli had no illusions about overcoming religion.”

Political regimes repress integrity so as to favor religion. With the articulation of IPEA---each person has the individual power, the individual energy, and the individual authority to develop integrity---or a better expression of the-objective-truth. Perhaps the era of religion partnering with government to oppress citizens, or Chapter XI Machiavellianism, is on its way to decline. Machiavelli’s long awaited era of separation of church and state seems imminent.

https://www.quora.com/What-are-some-opinions-viewpoints-that-society-would-consider-deplorable-or-even-sickening-but-actually-make-a-lot-of-sense-when-you-really-think-about-it/answer/Phil-Beaver-1

Every human has the individual power, energy, and authority (IPEA) to develop integrity.

Most humans do not develop integrity, for various reasons; some think crime pays.

A prominent influence is society’s imposition or inculcation that a human needs and must seek a higher power. However, the person who accepts IPEA manages the lesser powers involved in living, including the so-called human condition: “the positive and negative aspects of existence as a human being, [especially] the inevitable events such as birth, childhood, adolescence, love, sex, reproduction, aging, and death” (the definition of human condition). What nonsense!

The phrase “human condition” is a good example of cliches everyone uses but no one would voluntarily clarify. Often, the person who uses the phrase has not done the work to acquire personal understanding. I think the phrase intends to hide IPEA, but often the user has not the awareness to recognize the error. Yet not all users are innocent. For example, a priest or minister might cite the human condition to justify the intellectual construct the minister would impose on the listener.

For example, “Phil, you soul could end up in hell, which is eternal fire your soul will feel. The behaviors I will teach you will help your life as well as save your soul. And there is no charge for my services. However, one of the behaviors is to deposit 10% of your income for life into the Lord’s coffers.” I asked, “Show me a soul or someone who experienced the afterdeath, that vast time after body, mind, and person have stopped functioning.” Turns out, if I wanted to join the club I’d have to fear the Lord. I responded, “I did not fear the Lord before I was conceived: Why should I not trust whatever is responsible for my existence?” The minister invited me to change.

Returning to “human condition,” the above definition lamely cited “existence” then gave a long list of “especially” events. That list of events falls into a category I refer to as the-objective-truth, which can only be discovered. A minister can imagine my death, but my death can only be discovered. No matter what part of my death someone may want to discuss, their statements count for nothing, excepting one: my death is inevitable. I may face my death or not, but it is coming, and I doubt my person will be around to describe it. And that’s how it is with every bit of the-objective-truth: it is, we may or may not discover it, but we cannot construct it.

My preference for how to employ my IPEA is to develop integrity. That is, do the work to understand the-objective-truth; learn how to benefit from what has been discovered; recognize some ideas as possibilities I cannot risk; behave accordingly; publicly express understanding; and remain alert to discovery that requires changed behavior.

After accumulation of a critical habit in integrity, I may then develop comprehensive fidelity. Beyond fidelity to the-objective-truth there are, respectively and comprehensively, fidelity to self, to immediate family, to extended family and friends, to the people (nation), to humankind (the world), and to the universe.

With these two practices, integrity and fidelity, the individual may manage the lesser powers: civilization (coercion), governments (force), and gods (mysteries). The person may, in every thought, every word, every act, neither initiate nor tolerate harm to or from any entity.

If a super-majority of the world’s 7.6 billion people consider and accept IPEA, the lesser powers would be compelled to reform so as to conform to the-objective-truth. There would be a civic culture, wherein dissidents to justice would be inspired to reform, not to avoid constraint but to enjoy the benefits they observe in civic citizens. For examples of the-objective-truth, the earth is like a globe rather than flat and civic citizens do not lie.

These concepts seem awful to the lesser powers but are delightful to most individuals who learn of them. I hope we will soon perceive that a super-majority of individuals have accepted IPEA.

If so, we will know, because social morality will yield to civic morality. A civic culture will collaborate for individual liberty with civic morality. The civic citizen will responsibly pursue personal happiness according to the-objective-truth rather than the dictates of lesser powers, lesser energies, and lesser authority.

https://www.quora.com/What-makes-leftism-so-disgusting-to-the-right/answer/Phil-Beaver-1

  

version of God too seriously. So far, an indolent people have failed to collaborate for mutual happiness during their lives such that a nation will survive.

In the first place, most Americans have no clue as to the gift-offer they live under or how it came to be. They think they are too busy living to collaborate to secure freedom from oppression so as to have the liberty to responsibly pursue happiness according to personal preferences.

Humankind’s cultural evolution led to theism and slavery, which are mutually supporting or co-dependent evils. Hammurabi's code cited slavery, and the Abrahamic god is 4000 years old. Israel may not have been an Egyptian slave. Africa developed its commodity: the African slave. Christianity defended both the master-slave and opposite relationships in its Holy Bible canonization, completed in about 405 AD. In other words, slavery is not America’s “original sin.”

This country was successively overtaken by “natives” perhaps 12,000 years ago; Portugal and Spain with African slave trades for colonization 500 years ago; England, France and Holland (a little) 400 years ago with accelerated African slave trade—-with involvement by other European countries.

In 1763, colonial Americans realized they were being enslaved by England. In 1774, militia-farmers liberated Worcester; A Celebration of Worcester County’s Role in the American Revolution. Politicians among the leaders of the thirteen British colonies promoted the people’s courage unto personal ambition. They led a drive to change from colonists to statesmen in a confederation of states and scheduled a second congress. However, the revolutionary war was upon them, and they issued a declaration of independence. Self-styled statesmen would defeat the world’s greatest empire, but before long, they sought help from France, who was already at war with England. The victory at Yorktown, VA was by French strategy and overwhelming military force. The thirteen free and independent states ratified their global status in 1784 as the Treaty of Paris. They struggled a couple years when a rebellion by Massachusetts farmers prompted a convention to strengthen the states to unity. Instead, the signers, 2/3 of the delegates representing 12/13 states, proposed the worlds first government that offers an agreement between civic citizens in their states: the preamble to the constitution for the USA. There would be a clean break from England’s Blackstone common law and Canterbury Protestantism. The specified 9/13 states established the USA on June 21, 1788. The nine states hoped the dissenting four would join before operations began on March 4, 1789, and one did, so the USA began operating of, by, and the civic people in 10 of 13 states. The First Congress unconstitutionally re-established common law with factional-American Protestantism. Voters, the 5% of free people (80% of inhabitants) were accustomed to common law under theism and had no idea what citizens of 2018 would face. We are no longer 99% factional protestant with only 5% of citizens able to vote.

In the 235 years since fellow-citizen Washington’s speech, the preamble has been neglected to the point that many Americans have no regard for it at all. However, it is the first legal statement in the constitution. It is a civic agreement that promulgates civil order. The first civic duty is to earn a living and the second is to understand and utilize Maslow's hierarchy of needs or better. A civic people can use the preamble’s power if one event occurs.

A super-majority of citizens may accept their individual power, energy, and authority (IPEA) to develop integrity instead of infidelity towards the-objective-truth, self, family, friends, the people, humankind, and the universe, both respectively and collectively.

Leftism is disgusting because it has no integrity. Leftists would benefit without collaboration or even cooperation. They think they have the right to know arithmetic without learning!

Rightism is less disgusting because it is responsibly egocentric, much as Christianity. It posits religious integrity at the expensive of civic morality, and is thereby ruinous, as the Civil War demonstrated.

Christian egocentricity has, from 1700 years ago, but especially, over the last five to seven decades produced African-American Christianity! Is there a more promising way to divide the house? I doubt it.

However, trust-in and commitment-to the preamble offers civic integrity by which a people may develop comprehensive fidelity.

I hope this message spreads fast and we begin to observe collaboration for mutual, comprehensive safety and security in the USA within the year: integrity and fidelity may become observable. I write to learn, so please comment.

libertylawsite.org/2018/04/03/to-secure-the-blessings-of-liberty-sharing-stories-of-american-civic-purposes-virtuous-citizenship-symposium/

James Madison left mysteries, so mysteries about the mysteries seem futile. For example, it seems Memorial and Remonstrance was not his work alone. See the ample Editorial note at https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Madison/01-08-02-0163.

Plato had Socrates inform us that nothing is more damaging to a citizen than to claim wisdom: better to admit, “I do not know,” when that is so.

Plato had Agathon inform us that a civic citizen neither initiates nor tolerates harm to or from anyone; but not everyone is a civic citizen.

Frederick Douglass informed us, “. . . every American citizen has a right to form an opinion of the constitution, and to propagate that opinion, and to use all honorable means to make his opinion the prevailing one. With out this right, the liberty of an American citizen would be as insecure as that of a Frenchman.” Some people disagree with Douglass.

Kahlil Gibran informed us that this generation is not to try to instruct the next generation, because time marches forward rather than backward; http://www.katsandogz.com/onchildren.html. The idea of people ten generations ago imposing on people’s lives is not consistent with time’s direction. Furthermore, what reason said about justice among the 5% of factional Protestants who could vote in 1790 does not apply to the 2018 diverse population with 100% non-criminal voters. Justice marches with time.

Albert Einstein informed us that civic citizens do not lie to one another so as to lessen misery and loss; see Einstein’s essay within https://samharris.org/my-friend-einstein/. I think the writer’s hate concepts in John 15:18-23 are intolerable.

In 2018, we have the articulation that every human has the independent power, energy, and authority (IPEA) to develop integrity. But some persons honestly use their human IPEA for egocentricity, crime, evil, and other infidelity. Some try to take advantage of persons who develop integrity and fidelity.

Professors, lawyers, and judges may tell themselves they are above fellow citizens. However, prudence begs recognition that some people use their IPEA for fidelity to the-objective-truth and do not tolerate harm to or from anyone. Even though civic people may unavoidably suffer objectionable force, they reject coercion.

With citizens using widespread IPEA to develop integrity, fidelity may emerge in a civic culture: A better future may be attainable. I hope these thoughts are well received. I have no idea how much collaboration in the silence of this forum contributed to the articulations but am a grateful fellow-citizen.

Accepted: In 1852, Frederick Douglass informed us, “. . . every American citizen has a right to form an opinion of the constitution, and to propagate that opinion, and to use all honorable means to make his opinion the prevailing one. Without this right, the liberty of an American citizen would be as insecure as that of a Frenchman.”

Kahlil Gibran informed us that the passing generation may not instruct the coming generation, because time marches forward rather than backward; http://www.katsandogz.com/onchildren.html.

In 2018, we have the articulation: Every human has the independent power, energy, and authority (IPEA) to develop integrity. But some persons honestly use human IPEA for egocentricity, crime, evil, and other infidelity. Some people try to take advantage of persons who develop integrity and fidelity.

Prudence begs recognition that some people use their IPEA for fidelity to the-objective-truth and do not tolerate harm to or from anyone. Even though civic people may unavoidably suffer objectionable force, they reject coercion. Eventually, the people overcome coercion.

http://www.libertylawsite.org/book-review/political-philosophy-thoughts-on-strauss-and-machiavelli/

“All this has ultimately to do with the fundamental question of the right way of life—is it the life of reason alone or the life of morality and faith?”

That sentence reminds me of statistical studies in the modern coercion called “social sciences”. In order to build a statistical case, policymakers omit the controlling variable. In this case, perhaps the right way of life is to discover the-objective-truth and do the work to understand how to benefit from the discovery. In a word, the right way of life is integrity.

Thus, a more statistically inclusive question is: Is the right way of life the life of reason alone, or morality and faith, or integrity? Why is integrity omitted from this review and related classical philosophy in general?

“Meier’s Strauss shows that Machiavelli’s knowledge of the world—his awareness that it was not created miraculously ex nihilo—is traceable to the Averroists. Their teachings deny creation, providence and the immortality of the soul, and were well known to the educated in Machiavelli’s time.“ Likewise, integrity is neither new nor novel.

“As regards the principle of authority, which commands obedience rather than thought, Machiavelli earned the right to question the “highest authority”—the jealous Biblical God —first by surrendering to it, that is, by taking it with absolute seriousness, and by supporting that authority “with reasons by means of his own reason.” Why is reason adequate when integrity is required? And to what, beyond actual reality or the-objective-truth, does individual authority command obedience?

Why is “the hope of being able to control chance, which is bound up with belief in Gods” tolerated when the-objective-truth exists and is the object of humankind’s noble work? We know this from the ancients as well as from Albert Einstein.

Back to statistics, does “the common good” exclude what the individual desires? Does the individual desire integrity? “Strauss says . . .  Machiavelli was clearly aware of “the delusions of immortal glory and of the limitations of the political. Immortal glory is impossible, and what is called immortal glory depends on chance.” Is that actual reality, or an opinion?

In a civic culture, government’s purpose is to develop mutual, comprehensive safety and security so that civic citizens may discover individual power, energy, and authority (IPEA) in order to develop integrity. In a civic culture responsible religions and philosophies flourish according to believers’ preferences. But not all persons develop IPEA for integrity; for example, some believe in crime.

The first sentence of the constitution for the USA, perhaps with the revision from “Unity” to “integrity,” offers an agreement to collaborate for a civic culture, where “civic” refers to mutual justice. The preamble is a legal sentence, which may be used to encourage dissidents to reform. Thus, the civic culture is not a utopia, but is an attainable government that fully recognizes that some persons will use IPEA for immorality.

I doubt anyone can demonstrate that “Machiavelli’s practical science soon became modern science and technology.” In other words it is only an idea, much like “the thoroughgoing intelligibility of the world,” a scholarly distraction. However, perhaps Machiavelli ironically warned the people about the-objective-truth. Perhaps “The Prince,” especially Chapter XI, expresses to the people Machiavelli’s novel dream of an attainable, better future.

People may happily employ IPEA to pursue scholarly opinion. With the articulation of IPEA, they may imagine that other people are developing integrity, and beyond integrity fidelity to the-objective-truth.

Amy L. Wax, “The University of Denial”, Wall Street Journal, March 23, 2018, page A17, wsj.com/articles/the-screwball-tragedy-of-donald-trump-1520552914.

Philip K. Dick: “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn’t go away.” [That makes no sense: I stopped believing in Christianity, it did not go away, but it is still doctrine, a mere speculation about reality.]

“[School grades] represent an objective reality, which exists independent of what people want reality to be.” [Is “objective reality” a better phrase than “the-objective-truth”? I don’t think so because “reality” has an element of perception, which can be false. Also, coupled with reality, “objective” has an evaluative aspect. I think “actual reality” omits evaluation. But I need to consider the phrase more.]

“. . . students often expect equality of results and . . . issue loud demands for equality in [identity] outcomes.”

“Viewing these facts [that cause deficiencies] as offensive will not make [the deficiencies] go away.”

“The mindset that values openness understands that the truth can be inconvenient and uncomfortable, doesn’t always respect our wishes, and sometimes hurts. Good feelings and reality don’t always mix.”

“The deeper price is that people come to believe that truth yields to power, and that political pressure should be brought to bear to avoid inconvenient realities.”

“But when facts are concealed they do not change. They have consequences whether or not we are prepared to face them.”

“That the belief that political force determines objective reality has characterized totalitarian regimes worldwide and throughout history---regimes that are responsible for untold amounts of human misery.”

 Phil Beaver does not “know.” He trusts in and is committed to the-objective-truth which can only be discovered. Conventional wisdom has truth founded on reason, but it obviously does not work. Phil is agent for A Civic People of the United States, a Louisiana, education non-profit corporation. See online at promotethepreamble.blogspot.com, and consider essays from the latest and going back as far as you like.