Democrat solidarity begs woe for all

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 individual happiness with civic integrity more than for the city, state, nation, or society.

Consider writing a personal paraphrase of the preamble, which offers fellow citizens mutual equality:  For discussion, I convert the preamble’s predicate phrases to nouns and paraphrase it for my proposal as follows: “We willing citizens of the United States collaborate for civic, civil, and legal self-discipline to provide integrity, justice, goodwill, defense, prosperity, liberty, for ourselves and for the nation’s grandchildren and beyond and by this amendable constitution authorize and limit the U.S.A’s service to the people in their states.”

I want to collaborate with the other citizens on this paraphrase and theirs. I would preserve the original, 1787, text, unless it is amended by the people.

It seems no one has challenged whether or not the preamble is a legal statement. The fact that it changed this independent country from a confederation of states to a union of states deliberately managed by disciplined fellow citizens convinces me the preamble is legal. Equity in opportunity and outcome is shared by the people who collaborate for human justice.

Every citizen has equal opportunity to either trust-in and collaborate-on the goals stated in the preamble or be dissident to the agreement. I think 2/3 of citizens try somewhat to use the preamble but many do not articulate commitment to the goals. However, it seems less than 2/3 understand that “posterity” implies grandchildren. “Freedom of religion,” which fellow citizens have no means to discipline, oppresses freedom to develop integrity.

Selected theme from this week

If people like me had not voted for Trump/Pence twice, the world would never have known how evil the Democrats are. Clinton would have maintained the evil without the desperation that ensued on her well earned defeat. Walter Williams and Byron York write about it in civil words, but hide the evil's seriousness. We the People of the United States can achieve a better future.

Columns

Adolescent thinking by chronological adults (Walter Williams) (http://stocktalkjournal.com/walter-williams-is-reality-optional/)

U.S. fellow citizens would not consider an American’s demand to be called king.

“It’s no different from a person born with XY chromosomes declaring that he is a woman. The XY sex determination system is the sex determination system found in humans and most other mammals. Females typically have two of the same kind of sex chromosome (XX) and are called the homogametic sex. Males typically have two different kinds of sex chromosomes (XY) and are called the heterogametic sex.”

Democrats won’t face facts (Byron York) (http://stocktalkjournal.com/walter-williams-is-reality-optional/)

For instance “The San Diego Sector in California is a case study in the effectiveness of a border barrier. In 1986, before the construction of a barrier, there were more than 628,000 apprehensions, while untold numbers of others successfully made it across the border illegally. In 2017, after the construction of extensive barriers, there were 26,086 apprehensions, according to the Border Patrol.”

Quora

https://www.quora.com/With-social-justice-the-top-one-percent-pay-for-most-things-in-society-or-so-it-seems-What-obligation-does-the-lower-half-have-to-work-hard-and-better-themselves-and-their-situation?

Is this a rhetorical question? Perhaps you assert that 99% of society is enjoying the life they have, good or bad, at the expense of the 1%. Further, the 1% plus the rest of the upper half are exempt from social justice, leaving it to the lower half to develop upward mobility. Does that accurately represent your idea?

I think “social justice” is a scholarly phrase that is used, normally intentionally, to preserve classism. In other words, it comes-from or is nourished-by the propriety of the 1%. By propriety I mean that if you want to know why it’s that way, you have to understand the system.

The most egregious intention is to preserve ignorance among the lower class. At the top of the tier of preferences, a 1% education is reserved for the offspring of the 1%. I could not have articulated that when a wealthy classmate was headed for military school and on to Yale. I have no idea what he would call statutory justice, but it cannot come from law schools.

Ultimate justice can come only through collaboration by willing people. In the U.S. the agreement by fellow citizens to collaborate for statutory justice is offered in the preamble to the U.S. Constitution, and perhaps nowhere else. The U.S. preamble is repressed not only by the political regimes but by fellow citizens for reasons they may or may not understand. The first problem is self-discipline, which is necessary by both the 1% and the 99%.

The preamble proposes individual self-discipline to collaborate for civic integrity. Fellow citizens have the freedom-to reject the agreement and the liberty-to pursue the human rights they perceive. Unfortunately, some individuals envision living someone else’s lifestyle without contributing to economic viability. Some sincerely think crime pays, the 1%-ers may perceive more pay from crime than the bottom half does.

There are three educational aspects to phenomenon of economic viability. First, the individual must earn the income needed for the lifestyle he or she wants. Second, for survival, the gross national product may be distributed according to the contributions humankind needs; entertainment is a low-priority need. Third, to collectively develop and maintain statutory justice, the individual must collaborate under a civic, civil, and legal agreement during his or her cognizant lifetime.

Classism seems a global problem derived from the fact that economic viability is not obvious to the newborn infant, powerful as the human infant may be. Unlike a fold, which struggles to stand upon delivery and becomes a suckling three hours later, the human infant is totally dependent for survival. However, after a quarter century the human’s  body has completed construction of the wisdom parts of the brain. By then, he or she needed the basic education on which to choose to pursue a lifetime developing either infidelity or integrity. Initial experiences with integrity may nourish fidelity to the-objective-truth.

Only the most aware humans choose to develop integrity, and individuals who develop fidelity may discover the-objective-truth during old age. Few humans achieve an approach to perfect fidelity. Even Albert Einstein’s perfection was lessened by his will to speak to the audience in terms he thought they could understand. For example, “Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind” may exist because Einstein was “dumbing down” his actual opinion. Perhaps he thought:  evidentiary study without motivation is lame and obligation without evidence is stupid” or a better avoidance of mystery.

Without essential education, the human individual usually suffers the constraints of survival---the need for the food he are she will accept motivates subsistence on menial work or welfare---always thanking a bureaucrat and never gaining the economic power to acquire the education he or she should have been offered from infancy through the first quarter century. The primary obligation of education systems is to encourage and coach the child that he or she has the individual power, the individual energy, and the individual authority (IPEA) to develop either infidelity or integrity. In 2019, the information needed to make that choice is freely available on the Internet, so relief from Great Britain’s traditions may be accelerated.

Great Britain honed classism using perhaps the world’s leading Chapter XI Machiavellian system. The commoner is thrilled by “God save the queen” and takes for granted the Canterbury-Lords-partnership that began constitutional development in 1215 with the signing of Magna Carta. The priests and lords set themselves above both the king and the people. The framers of the 1787 U.S. Constitution seemed to recognize the Chapter XI tyranny, and their debates inspired the committee of forms to write the world’s greatest political sentence: the preamble to the U.S. Constitution.

The U.S. preamble offers willing citizens the opportunity to pursue civic integrity, which may lead to the development of statutory justice. By statutory justice I mean written law that is based on the-objective-truth rather than dominant opinion, such as Chapter XI theism. Alas, “God save the queen” morphed to “God bless America.”

So far, the U.S. preamble enjoyed a nine-month window of potential influence: between the legal establishment of the U.S. on June 21, 1788 and beginning operations with eleven states on March 4, 1789. The First Congress ignored if not repressed the preamble and negotiated the re-establishment of colonial British influence through Blackstone common law and factional-American Protestantism to claim “traditional” congressional divinity on par with the constitutional parliament divinity. God would grant American power over Great Britain much as France had helped the Continental Army defeat England at 1781 Yorktown, VA. This fallacy was repeated when the South’s god would grant 7 states victory over the 27-state North’s god, both divinities being God.

Today, the American Judeo-Christian scholars and politicians harken to the likes of Francis Bacon (d. 1626), Thomas Hobbes (d. 1679), and John Locke (d. 1704), average reference date 1670, so as to further aid obfuscation of the U.S. preamble’s power. They ignore political progress offered by political geniuses like Albert Einstein (d. 1955). Einstein suggested that both technology and integrity derive from physics and its progeny---math, chemistry, biology, psychology and fiction---the objects of study rather than the study process.

Einstein’s illustration of the principle that integrity derives from physics is in “The Laws of Science and the Laws of Ethics” (https://samharris.org/my-friend-einstein/, Out of My Later Years, 1950). Fellow citizens do not lie to each other so that “Human life shall be preserved” and “Pain and sorrow shall be lessened as much as possible.”

He finishes with “Truth is what stands the test of experience.” Einstein’s “truth” seems to define the-objective-truth, which can only be discovered and confirmed by experience. Experience informs humankind that Chapter XI Machiavellianism is ruinous. For example observe what has happened to the USA under the tradition that began as factional-American Protestantism and gravitated to Judeo-Christianity. Since 1968, African-American Christianity formed, and Beta Israel may trace back to the tribe of Dan; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beta_Israel#Tribe_of_Dan. Non-Christian fellow citizens suffer much over freedom of religion, practically freedom of theism, dominantly freedom of Christianity.

Social justice is merely another religion that would impose Chapter XI Machiavellianism. The social idea is for the 50% to overthrow the economic advantage of the 1% who earn enough to live high on the hog and pay for both the lower half and the 49% remainder. But if the 99% merely push the 1% out, who will manage economic viability? The individual may decide to collaborate for civic integrity in order to secure the opportunity to responsibly pursue individual happiness rather than the dictates of a person or society.

Economic viability with civic integrity can be provided by a civic people, not by either a government or a god. U.S. fellow citizens may contemplate the U.S. preamble and either adopt it or provide a better agreement on which to collaborate for equity under statutory justice. The U.S. preamble is an agreement to trust-in and commit-to fidelity to the-objective-truth rather than conflict for dominant opinion. It is a commitment to ultimate justice or economic viability rather than social justice or chaos.

When I decided to respond to your question, I had no idea my post would become so long. I hope you were patient to read it. Moreover, I hope it kindled your interest in individual happiness with civic integrity rather than the life-outcome someone else or some society would impose on the person. If so, read and collaborate at promotethepreamble.blogspot.com.

https://www.quora.com/Is-American-Exceptionalism-a-constructive-or-destructive-force-in-American-political-and-social-life?

As practiced, American exceptionalism has been ruinous, bringing the people to the chaos of perhaps 50% wanting a social democracy instead of a representative republic. The nation is either at an abyss from which it will ascend to equity under a disciplined people or descend into socialism. False exceptionalism derived from pride in freedom of theism in rebellion against the colonial British imposition of Canterbury.

Declines are observable in Venezuela, a majority Roman Catholic people or Honduras, a majority Roman Catholic people or Guatemala with Roman Catholic principle religion and almost as much Protestantism.

There’s hope for America, where Roman Catholic influence is only 23% among the people despite the Supreme Court’s 5 to 6 Catholics and 3 Jews. Also, a growing 25% are non-theists.

America’s achievable reform is offered in the preamble to the U.S. Constitution. It enjoyed a short viability from June 21, 1788 until March 4, 1789 when the First Congress was seated representing eleven states. Like adolescent parents who know no better than to squabble over the competitive child-rearing lore of four grandparents, congress began the re-establishment of colonial British Blackstone with factional-Protestant-church partnering with Congress to give them a tradition of “divinity” on par with the constitutional Canterbury-Parliament partnership.

Greece v Galloway (2014) further codified this tradition that is devoid of civic integrity. The U.S. preamble has been suppressed for 229 years. Reform is possible, and we are working on it. See promotethepreamble.blogspot.com.

America is indeed exceptional in that its agreement for equity under statutory justice is offered in the U.S. preamble in freedom-from oppression. Fellow citizens live in the dichotomy self-discipline vs arrogance. When a super-majority, perhaps 2/3 take the liberty-to commit-to and trust-in the U.S. preamble, the nation may become great. Also, the 1/3 dissidents may perceive an achievable better future and therefore reform.

If you want to aid an achievable, better future, take interest in our work and collaborate to make it happen in time to relieve the current grandchildren and beyond of a growing $22 trillion in debt. Social democracy is a path to chaos.

Added to #acivicpeople

https://www.quora.com/Which-part-of-society-is-still-the-most-primal?

Primal is the fear that motives crime by government officials, especially in the USA.

The Greeks suggested 2,400 years ago the possibility of developing human equity under statutory justice. By “statutory justice” I mean perfection in a culture of fellow citizens living in a dichotomy with the choice of either crime or collaboration for justice. In such a culture, the mutual, comprehensive safety and security enjoyed by the willing would encourage the criminals to reform.

In the U.S., the agreement which offers this culture is the preamble to the U.S. Constitution. The U.S. preamble was created for signature on September 17, 1787, and apparently expressed the profound debates the framers had conducted.

Only 2/3 of framers signed the document, and some of the 1/3 framers who did not sign opposed the preamble. Some wanted to establish their God, a factional-Protestant American-God. Some wanted to preserve the confederation of states rather than initiate the individual self-discipline that commitment-to and trust-in the agreement requires.

The fears and desperation to compete keeps most fellow citizens from seriously considering the self-discipline the U.S. preamble calls for. However, elected and appointed officials consider themselves about fellow citizens and do all they can to hide the civic, civil, and legal powers of the U.S. preamble. There may be a better commitment to statutory justice; if so, I want to read it.

Posted on twitter and created #acivicpeople

https://www.quora.com/Should-our-personal-freedoms-be-restricted-for-the-wider-benefit-of-society?

Absolutely not. However, education systems may reform so as to promote integrity and self-discipline rather than sacrifice.

Traditional scholarly articles debate 17^th century liberalism, citing thinkers like Francis Bacon (d. 1626), Thomas Hobbes (d. 1679), and John Locke (d. 1704), average 1670. The scholar attempts to sell his or her biases grounded in 350 year old assumptions. A key assumption is that virtuous individuals sacrifice for the greater good.

Scholars in general or so steeped in the 2019 debates about 1670 political science that they overlook revolutionary political thought. For example, Albert Einstein, in 1941 (78 years ago), delivered the speech, “Science and Religion,” which I quote:

[A] religious person is devout in the sense that he has no doubt of the significance and loftiness of those superpersonal objects and goals which neither require nor are capable of rational foundation. They exist with the same necessity and matter-of-factness as he himself. In this sense religion is the age-old endeavor of mankind to become clearly and completely conscious of [un-selfish] values and goals and constantly to strengthen and extend their effect. If one conceives of religion and science according to these definitions then a conflict between them appears impossible. For science can only ascertain what is, but not what should be, and outside of its domain value judgments of all kinds remain necessary. Religion, on the other hand, deals only with evaluations of human thought and action: it cannot justifiably speak of facts and relationships between facts.

No political science article I have read quotes Einstein to evaluate the religious fervor of Locke and other thinkers. I encourage readers to study Einstein as a political philosopher.

“For the benefit of society,” is a scholarly phrase intended to establish and maintain a class culture. By that I mean a mimic of constitutional Great Britain, with a king, an archbishop, lords, etc., and commoners. The idea is that commoners sacrifice a human lifestyle so that the Canterbury-Parliament partnership can live high on the hog.

In civic integrity, willing fellow citizens may earn a human lifestyle and save money so as to continue the lifestyle into retirement. It is up to him or her to choose an adult career that fellow citizens appreciate enough to fund the individual’s chosen lifestyle. I chose chemical engineering based on aptitude tests and relative income. Now, I discover I want to be a writer, but could never have qualified without those 35 years’ service to fellow citizens and fellowman.

In his talk “The Laws of Science and the Laws of Ethics” (https://samharris.org/my-friend-einstein/, Out of My Later Years, 1950) Einstein’s only example that physics and integrity come from the same source is that fellow citizens do not lie to each other so that “Human life shall be preserved” and “Pain and sorrow shall be lessened as much as possible.” He finishes with “Truth is what stands the test of experience.”

Unsatisfied with “truth” I write “the-objective-truth,” which can only be discovered. Many scholars have the hubris to evaluate the-objective-truth. For example, Richard M. Reinsch, II, in “Understanding Liberalism” or “Liberalism, Properly Understood,” National Affairs, No. 38, Winter 2019, evaluates “truth” several ways: historically verifiable truths, grounded truth, the architectonic truth (ordered truth?), held truth, and the deepest kind of truth. The-objective-truth asserts non-flexibility. I don’t know if Einstein would agree that I have developed but hope so.

Every human being has the authentic opportunity to develop either infidelity or integrity. If the later, he or she may manage external and internal constraints so as to pursue individual happiness with civic integrity instead of the limitations someone else would persuade him or her to accept.

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.