“ourselves and our Posterity”

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: “Willing citizens collaborate, communicate, and connect to provide 5 public institutions—integrity, justice, peace, strength, and prosperity—so as to encourage responsible human liberty to living people.” I want to collaborate with the other citizens on this paraphrase and theirs yet 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

“ourselves and our Posterity”

Most citizens in both the majority the minorities want mutual, comprehensive safety and security. Political regimes have, for 12 generations now, bemused fellow citizens from choosing integrity rather than infidelity. Consequently, few citizens can articulate their individual interpretation of the U.S. Preamble’s proposition. As a consequence, few U.S. citizens accept the responsible human liberty that is proposed in the literal U.S. Preamble. The first consideration is that “Liberty to ourselves”: we are the 12^th generation of the 1787 “our Posterity.” Living citizens are responsible for mutual, comprehensive safety and security to ourselves and our posterity.

Columns

Sometimes The Advocate likes John Kennedy’s views (The Advocate) (https://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/opinion/our_views/article_28f80a42-388c-11ea-b547-1f143e1389a0.html)

It’s embarrassing that The Advocate wishes “the impeachment trial is far too serious a matter for Senate leaders to be playing these sorts of games.” Out of the Democrats’ attack on We the People of the United States there will come an amendment of the First Amendment so as to hold the press responsible for ineluctably evident breach of statutory justice. The Louisiana constitution already holds people and the press responsible for expressions, and once again, the USA can mimic Louisiana.

I say “once again” to recall Louisiana’s 1880 statutory treasure, the non-unanimous criminal jury verdict rule, at 9:3 majority. England (in 1967) and many former British colonies adopted 10:2 verdicts in order to lessen organized crime’s influence on trials. The current U.S. Supreme Court Ramos v Louisiana may lead to legislative restoration of Louisiana’s 9:3 rule and more improvements for victims of crimes. Unanimous juries hurt blacks 700% disproportionately overall and 350% disproportionately among the poor.

Shame on The Advocate for their Pulitzer Prize for contributing to termination of Louisiana’s 10:2 verdicts. Be sure and read my comments on Walter Williams’ column today at http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/williams011520.php3, wherein I compute the above two percentages.

How many murders in what proportion? (Walter Williams) (http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/williams011520.php3)

Williams continues to disappoint me on claims without data.

I did not find the data for 2019, but for 2018 and at 90% there were 6,666 black on black murders or 47.2% of 14,123 US total and compared to 5480 white on white murders, https://www.statista.com/statistics/251877/murder-victims-in-the-us-by-race-ethnicity-and-gender/. (Compare Williams’ report of 212 police shootings of blacks or 3.2% relative to black on black murders.)

As of July 1, 2019, there were 250.3 million whites and 43.8 million blacks; https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/US/IPE120218.

Thus, black on black murder about 6666/43.8 times 250.3/5480 times 100% = 700 % disproportionately hurts blacks vs whites.

There were 25.3 million whites and 9.1 million blacks in poverty; https://www.povertyusa.org/facts. Black on black murder about 6666/9.1 times 25.3/5480 times 100% = 340 % disproportionately hurts poor blacks vs poor whites.

I wish Williams would improve on my attempt to proportionate the problem and to track the major statistic each year.

Posted at the above URL.

Quora

https://www.quora.com/What-is-intellectual-sportsmanship?

I don’t know. Is it a form of insincerity? Is it a sport for radical skeptics? Does it defy the constraints of physics, the object of study rather than the study?

I gave my first talk on “Faith in the objective truth” in 2006. A professor sincerely asked, “In what truth do you place your faith: God’s truth, ultimate truth, absolute truth, Phil’s truth?”

Now, I trust-in and am committed-to the-objective-truth as the reliable path to the-literal-truth. The-objective-truth is subject to improved instruments or methods of perception, and the last discovery brings humankind to the-literal-truth.

In both phrases, the hyphens invite the intellectual sport or radical skeptic to not separate the article so as to ply his or her skills. Most scholars ignore the invitation and respond with “objective truth” according to his or her opinion. Many scholars attempt to deny actual reality.

 https://www.quora.com/When-minorities-try-to-form-identities-exclusive-to-that-minority-which-are-separate-from-the-majority-do-they-cause-more-harm-than-not?

Yes, and it works both ways: A politically motivated majority causes harm.

Civic dialogue so far is constrained by proprietary terms that bemuse citizens rather than solve problems.

While I have not met everyone, it seems evident that most humans who have freedom-from oppression enough to know and articulate their civic wishes want mutual, comprehensive safety and security (hereafter mutual security). That claim would be sufficient to divide humankind into 2 groups: those who practice and promote mutual, comprehensive safety and security and those who don’t. For your question, we’d need to know which group constitutes the majority.

If we assume that the majority of persons want mutual security, it becomes obvious that identity groups in opposition cause harm. My simplistic approach comes not from my opinion, but from ancient opinion about even older ideas.

For example, about 2,400 years ago, three Greek opinions were recorded, and I have interpreted them based on my opinion incorporating some propriety that emerged from the 17^th century forward. First, civic citizens pursue equity under statutory justice---perfect written law. Second, a civic citizen neither initiates nor tolerates harm to or from any person or civic institution. Third, a civic citizen is humble toward whatever-God-is as fellow citizens mutually pursue discovery-of and benefit-from the-literal-truth.

A culture based on the above principles was ratified on June 21, 1788 as the preamble to the amendable U.S. Constitution (the U.S. Preamble). Every citizen owes it to self to study and interpret the U.S. Preamble’s proposition so as to order his or her civic integrity with responsible pursuit of individual happiness rather than the dictates of other humans.

The object of the U.S. Preamble’s proposition is repressed by political regimes, and only the entity We the People of the United States can effect cultural reform. The U.S. Preamble’s object is responsible “Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.” To the September 1787 authors of the U.S. Preamble we are perhaps the 12^th generation in their “Posterity.” Living families and individuals are the “ourselves” to “our Posterity.” Accepting this continuous responsibility is required to preserve the culture of liberty to living citizens.

My interpretation of the U.S. Preamble’s proposition for my life style is:  We the People of the United States maintain 5 public disciplines---integrity, justice, peace, strength, and prosperity---in order to encourage responsible human liberty to living citizens. Thus, the culture is predicated on discipline that empowers liberty. I am anxious to learn other citizens’ interpretations so as to benefit from other viewpoints. However, I have no desire to further study 2020 expectations scholars can imagine from John Adams’, James Madison’s, or other framer’s views.

I think US citizens will ultimately establish this view of an American dream: at least 2/3 of citizens practicing and promoting discipline for responsible human liberty. Minority identity groups will then perceive that they oppose mutual security and may be motivated to reform. If not, they may face statutory law.

https://www.quora.com/What-do-all-people-need-to-know-and-understand-about-responsibility?

Responsible human liberty is available to fellow citizens who practice and maintain 5 public disciplines: integrity, justice, peace, strength, and prosperity. Dissident fellow citizens are constrained by gradually developing statutory justice and meanwhile may suffer un-just law.

The above ideas come from my personal interpretation of the U.S. Preamble, the preamble to the U.S. Constitution. Every U.S. citizen owes it to self to develop his or her interpretation of the U.S. Preamble’s proposition. The phrase “Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity” applies to us as the 10^th or 11^th generation since the ratification of the U.S. Preamble (and the amendable articles of the 1787 U.S. Constitution) on June 21, 1788. In other words, living families and individuals are the “ourselves” and our descendants and beyond are “our Posterity.”

Living in the USA without a personal interpretation of the U.S. Preamble is worse than paying dues to an association you never heard of. Political regimes make civic ignorance commonplace.

Accepting the U.S. Preamble’s proposition is difficult, so there are few citizens who articulate that they are members of the U.S. Preamble’s entity We the People of the United States. We work to change that.

https://www.quora.com/Will-the-world-be-a-better-place-if-we-all-understand-each-other-s-perspective?

No. There are too many perspectives and a human lifetime is too short. However, there is an immediately available better future. What’s required is acceptance of some key suggestions from the past and individual pursuit of integrity rather than competition for higher opinion. Pursuit of integrity leads to discovery of the-objective-truth and work to understand how to benefit from the discovery. As new instruments are invented, objective modification of the understanding so as to approach the-literal-truth.

Three of the key acceptances are: 1) civic citizens pursue equity under statutory human justice, 2) a civic citizen neither initiates nor tolerates harm to any person or to whatever-God-is and 3) every human has the individual power, the individual energy, and the individual authority (HIPEA) to develop integrity even if he or she initially wanders into infidelity but reforms. 

In the USA, accepting the U.S. Preamble’s proposition under the above considerations, as the individual interprets the preamble, divides citizens into two groups: those who develop civic citizenship and dissidents. My interpretation of the U.S. Preamble for my way of living is:  We the People of the United States consider, communicate, collaborate, and connect to establish and maintain 5 public disciplines in order to encourage responsible human liberty to living citizens. The preamble offers no standard for the 5 disciplines. Perhaps the ultimate extent and quality of responsible human liberty among citizens is the standard.

Perhaps most humans want mutual, comprehensive safety and security. If so, each person may, under the above principles, develop individual happiness with civic integrity without evaluating each other’s perspectives with intent to understand more than safety and security. Strangers can be serene strangers; friends can be friends; mutual appreciators can be appreciative and that includes appreciation for serene confidence in public places; lovers can be lovers; and spouses can be faithful for life. Some dissidents may be encouraged by the civic culture to personally conform to the evident better future: responsible human liberty.



https://www.quora.com/What-form-of-government-best-suits-human-nature?

The U.S. Preamble, ratified by 9 of 13 eastern seaboard states on June 21, 1788, proposes 5 public disciplines to encourage responsible human liberty to living citizens and their posterity. Each citizen is free to ignore the U.S. Preamble’s civic, civil, and legal proposition, but may consequentially yield liberty to statutory law enforcement. Standards are offered for neither the 5 disciplines nor responsible liberty. Perhaps the extent and quality of responsible human liberty among fellow citizens is the standard by which an achievable better future is measured.

Widespread acceptance of the U.S. Preamble’s proposition---discipline for responsible human liberty---is a shocking possibility!

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.