human responsible liberty
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 the civic people of the united states in order to develop
individual discipline, civic integrity, justice, defense, and prosperity so as
to perpetually preserve liberty, maintain statutory law for the USA.”
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.
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
The preamble to the U.S. Constitution (hereafter, the U.S.
preamble) offers fellow citizens a proposal each individual may reject. The
proposition is to collaborate for five provisions---Union, Justice, Tranquility,
defense, and welfare----so as to encourage human responsible liberty. Of all
the living species, only the human has the individual power, the individual
energy, and the individual authority (HIPEA) to develop either integrity or
infidelity. The individual who chooses to develop integrity collaborates in
human responsible liberty.
Other fellow citizens may collaborate when they choose to,
provided they have not committed a criminal act for which they are constrained,
in which case they may reform as a first step. Dissidents such as criminals
remain fellow citizens, and citizens who collaborate for the five provisions
encourage them by
Law professors
Suffusing scholarly opinion with art references makes
arrogance against an opposing scholar seem doubly offensive. Slinging lame evaluations
like nonsense, sadly, brilliant translator with analytic stupidity, clueless,
essential truth as surrogate for the-objective-truth, and political correctness
seems both un-civic and uncivil.
It seems to me Emily Wilson, in “We should learn about
ancient societies because they’re different from modern societies” expresses a
point that the modern student should heed. For example, neither translator nor
scholar will help the student imagine that Plato in “Symposium” had Agathon
express that fellow citizens who appreciate life neither initiate nor tolerate
harm to or from humans or Gods. I don’t think Western civilization has yet
grasped this proposition derived from a translation of Plato but otherwise not
from a scholar or university.
Wilson was not hurt by McGinnis’s unfortunate essay.
I am wildly disappointed in how negatively people seem to be responding to you. I think you’re right, honestly.
I’m also glad to hear that Wilson at least wasn’t hurt by the article (how do you know this? are you a colleague of hers?) – of course I’ve never met her or heard of her before this, but I can’t help but wonder: how could anyone think it respectable to write a public article declaiming her alone, just to prove a point? The only reason she was brought into the article was so the author could say “here is one single person who is wrong and here’s why her view is silly,” something I don’t think serves to make the argument any stronger and just shows that the author is inconsiderate and somewhat contemptible.
Without knowing either Wilson or the author, all it does is make me like the author less and feel bad for Wilson. I’m that sure isn’t what the author meant to achieve, so what is?
-
I appreciate your comments.The very idea of creating an expression against which truth may be examined is disturbing to many self-styled scholars and “authorities.” It is a consequence of my 2006 speech, “Faith in the truth,” and a brilliant man’s question, “Phil what truth are you preaching? Absolute truth? Ultimate truth? God’s truth? Phil’s truth?” I answered, “The truth based on evidence any human can discover, comprehend, and use for benefit.” About a decade later, I connected the-objective and objective-truth and thanked Harold Weingarten for a thoughtful question.I write to express and collaborate on the-objective-truth and am confident that the message is more important that Phil Beaver. What amazes me is that AI labeled “gabe,” which seems clueless.I do not know Wilson and doubt there’s enough of my remaining life to enjoy her work as I wish to. However, as I mentioned earlier, Plato, writing about Agathon’s speech in “Symposium” presented an idea I have developed during my recent two decades: Citizens who appreciate life neither initiate nor tolerate harm to or from men and gods. I doubt another human would imagine that thought from Plato’s writing or scholars’ interpretations.When I perceive someone is attempting to harm a fellow citizen, I share my perception with the perpetrator, leaving it to him or her to assess my opinion. I thought McGinnis was behaving like an adolescent. He reminded me of James Comey, and perhaps my opinion of Comey nanny-state-behavior applies. I think Comey honestly has never considered integrity. I could be wrong on both accounts.
- My compliments to Mr. Beaver for outdoing Henry James’s often convoluted and at times impenetrable writing style.EWT: I appreciate learning “at the end of Euripides’ Medea Jason screams that ‘none of this would have happened if I had married a good Greek girl.’”I scanned http://www.stoa.org/diotima/anthology/EuripidesMedeaLuschnig.pdf and see that the real issue is infidelity, which was a bad 2,500 years ago as it is today.Euripides portrayed men as citing the grace of God to justify their willfulness and some women would not fall for it when another woman stepped in to take her husband. I think there is a case for studing 2,500 year-old stories so as to choose fidelity without personal loss and misery.Euripides expressed yet other angles about falling in love and making marriage vows. When infidelity came, the agreeved party did not accept “civilization.” Her action was far fetched and illustrated the woe the unfaithful beg.The human being is so aware and so capable of learning from the literature that to consider him or her in the class with the animals seems like proprietary protection of excuses for development of banal appetites.It seems past time for scholars to take a new path: Each person has human individual power, individual energy, and indiviual authority (HIPEA) to develop integrity. Integrity is the practice of comprehending the-objective-truth, behaving so as to benefit, and publically sharing the understanding so as to learn of possible improvements.
Upham’s essay illustrates a commonality of proprietary
scholarship: well accepted error. Religion seems to justify the errors.
Religion distracts citizens from developing integrity, a practice.
First, a writer needs scholarly propriety to assert “U.S.
citizenship . . . right must be both fundamental to citizenship and enjoyed
throughout the United States from the beginning of our Republic . . . with two important qualifications: the (1)
rights must be deeply rooted in our traditions of citizenship, and (2) those
traditions must be traceable to a genuine American consensus in 1776.”
There are many problems in the above assertion.
First, in 1776, there was a confederation of thirteen eastern seaboard British colonies north of Florida and Louisiana. The thirteen colonies ratified England’s treaty that they were thirteen free and independent states on January 14, 1784. The territories west of the Mississippi River and South of Georgia were not of the confederation.
First, in 1776, there was a confederation of thirteen eastern seaboard British colonies north of Florida and Louisiana. The thirteen colonies ratified England’s treaty that they were thirteen free and independent states on January 14, 1784. The territories west of the Mississippi River and South of Georgia were not of the confederation.
Nine of the thirteen states established the U.S. republic on
June 21, 1788, and the USA began operating with only eleven states on March 4,
1789. The first Congress egregiously re-established colonial British tradition
in the eastern seaboard. But again, throughout the rest of the continent
Spanish, French, Mexican, Russian, and other rule prevailed.
I have not the propriety to claim “a genuine American
consensus in 1776” and would not attempt to acquire it. In 1776, the slaves did
not consent. Of the free citizens, 40% were rebellious, 40% passive, and 20%
loyalists. By 1789, perhaps 5% of free citizens could vote. People in
territories beyond the British colonies did not consent.
But the main objection I have is the obfuscation of the
civic, civil, and legal powers of the U.S. preamble. By the most difficult
imaginable path, the USA is on the march toward conformance to the proposition
stated in the preamble.
The essence of the proposition seems: willing fellow
citizens in their states collaborate to provide Union, Justice, Tranquility,
defense, and welfare so as to secure human liberty for current and future
citizens including dissidents to justice, who need reform. The articles that
follow provide the laws and institutions by which disciplined citizens manage
local, state, and federal governments so as to discover and practice the
statutory justice that is required to conform to the U.S. preamble.
The U.S. preamble treats religion as a private pursuit
within human liberty. Fellow citizens do not collaborate on choosing theism or
not. Within theism, many people accept whatever-God-is while claiming a
personal God. The First Amendment erroneously imposes religion, an institution,
rather than securing individual opportunity to develop integrity within a
lifetime. In other words, the First Amendment’s religion clauses contradicts
the liberty proposed by the U.S. preamble. Plainly, separation of church and
state is an empty, proprietary slogan.
After 230 years of suppression, it is time to restore the
U.S. preamble’s civic, civil, and legal powers. One aspect is putting religion
in its proper place: in individual privacy. Only We the People of the United
States, by informed voting, can establish the USA under the U.S. preamble.
To David Upham:
Your original comment does not ignore
religion: “Howard conspicuously omitted (1) rights that respected basic human
dignity or natural rights (such as religious free exercise or the immunity
against compulsory self-incrimination), and (2) rights that was not universal
to the states from 1776 (such as religious non-establishment and jury trial in
civil cases).”
Does the 1776 consensus you speak of
influence the perhaps 1968 appearance of African-American Christianity? See https://www.wsj.com/articles/dr-kings-radical-biblical-vision-1522970778
to date the sect.
Are
the people of the 1776 consensus collaborating for 2019 civic integrity more
than a religious faith? Are the 1776 people even involved in 2019 living? Do
you represent them more than you represent your fellow citizenship?
Also,
did the 1776 consensus favor criminal jury unanimity? If so, how did the U.S. Amendment
VI require the states to provide an impartial jury rather than jury unanimity?
Do U.S. scholars who defend 1776 consensus care that 1967 England set aside
unanimity, creating 10:2 jury verdicts in criminal trials so as to lessen the
power of organized crime?
Facebook
https://www.facebook.com/upliftconnect/photos/a.316895231780798/1526823470787962/?type=3&theater
Pennie, how timely! I did not see a clear message as to what
to do about this age-old propaganda. Did you? Anyway, thank you. Phil P.S.: One
thing that distinguishes A Civic People of the United States is that we present
a concern, suggest a well-grounded proposition to address the concern, and
LISTEN for collaboration. A Civic People learned to manage activists against
collaboration so as to efficiently maintain the intent: an achievable better
future.
Comment on the original message: A Civic People of the United States (Google
the phrase in quotes), a Louisiana corporation for collaborative education,
presently asserts: Just as an individual may work in order to pay for the
variety and quality of food he or she prefers, each citizen may choose to
collaborate to discover statutory justice, a worthy endeavor to provide
responsible liberty even if ultimate justice is an unattainable perfection. In
this civic practice or culture, religion is a privately chosen (or personally
denied) pursuit, and individuals exchange hopes, comforts, and doctrine in
shared privacy without evaluation or intent to impose mysterious doctrine or
popular choice. The nature of a person's God is not for civic, civil, or legal
debate.
The above propositions are expressed in the U.S. preamble.
The objectionable exhortations against conversing about politics and religion
have suppressed the civic, civil, and legal powers of the U.S. preamble since
March 4, 1789, when the USA, with eleven member states began operations. In
other words, the U.S. preamble's potential powers persisted for only nine
months and have been suppressed for 230 years. Other generations have left to
our generation the privilege of re-establishing a civic people as proposed in
the U.S. preamble.
The USA was established on June 21, 1789, when nine states
ratified the U.S. preamble and the articles that follow it. We dub June 21
“Responsible Liberty Day” in our sixth annual celebration of the U.S.
preamble’s proposition.
Considering the internationally driven human abuse at our
southern border we can feel nothing but anxiety over the ruin delivered to our
doorsteps during the short time---230 years---the U.S. Congress has repressed
the civic, civil, and legal powers of the U.S. preamble’s 232 year-old, 51-word
proposition. The U.S. preamble’s proposition is to develop responsible human
liberty. Only the individuals of We the People of the United States can restore
the U.S. preamble’s power.
Human infants have so much physical and psychological power
that each individual can develop the person he or she wants to be. However, he
or she does not know his or her mature person, because it takes about six
decades or more to develop human maturity. Also, the potential to develop
integrity/fidelity may get distracted by human appetites, even banality. His or
her opportunity can be oppressed by both external and internal constraints.
Education systems, now errant, may be reformed to approve
and encourage the individual and corporate development of human integrity
rather than the struggle for dominant opinion or criminal success. Reformed
education would conform to the U.S. preamble’s collaborative political
proposition: responsible liberty to living and future fellow citizens. In other
words, obligation to past citizens is to be grateful for their good and to not
repeat their mistakes, whether traditional or spontaneous.
Each person has the individual human power, the individual
energy, and the individual authority (IHPEA) to develop either integrity or
infidelity to the-objective-truth. We the People of the United States
voluntarily, beneficially use the U.S. preamble’s proposition to manage
collaboration for the-objective-truth.
In the emerging, immediate future, politicians and
bureaucrats who do not collaborate to achieve the U.S. preamble’s goals may be
voted out of office by civic citizens in their communities---by We the People
of the United States as defined in the U.S. preamble.
An achievable better future may be accelerating unto actual
reality as I write. We are working for better future and invite you to be alert
for our sixth annual celebration of the U.S. preamble, now dubbed Responsible
Liberty Day, during the week of June 21, the anniversary of the 1788 date when
nine states established the USA by ratifying the U.S. preamble and the articles
intended to empower its proposition.
The people of those nine of thirteen states (2/3) represented a small fraction of the land and the republic. There were 34 states when 7 states declared secession. Now, there are 50 states and 6 territories. The U.S. preamble’s proposition has civic, civil, and legal power that fellow citizens may be restore.
The people of those nine of thirteen states (2/3) represented a small fraction of the land and the republic. There were 34 states when 7 states declared secession. Now, there are 50 states and 6 territories. The U.S. preamble’s proposition has civic, civil, and legal power that fellow citizens may be restore.
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.
