Responsible human independence

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

Responsible human independence

In my recent post at http://promotethepreamble.blogspot.com/2020/02/americas-revolution-for-responsible.html, I develop the evidence that liberty is often manifest as license or blood. Until I find better expression for common sense goodwill among living people, I prefer to promote responsible human independence as the essence of the U.S. Preamble’s proposition.

Readers may know that I read, write, and speak in order to learn, so comments are invited. Unless the-objective-truth if not the-literal-truth demands change, our seventh annual commemoration of June 21, 1788, when 9 of 13 states established the USA as a global nation by ratifying the U.S. Preamble and its supportive, amendable articles will be titled “Responsible Human Independence Day, 2020.”

We hope the audience will exceed one person or even seven or even 15, our most ever.

Quora

https://www.quora.com/What-is-something-you-cant-describe-in-a-way-that-would-do-justice?

The egocentric and shared benefits of (mutual) monogamy for life.

https://www.quora.com/Do-you-cast-your-vote-based-on-what-is-best-for-you-personally-or-what-you-feel-is-best-for-society-as-a-whole?

I do the work to understand whether my concern is born of actual reality or a mirage. If not a mirage, I then do the work to understand how to behave so as to benefit from the discovery. I share with my fellow citizens my comprehension and then listen for any criticism. If I perceive a way to improve my potential benefits, I change and thank the citizen for the insight. I also remain open minded to new discovery that demands change in my behavior for benefits.

Fellow citizens who do not consider my concerns and collaborate for beneficial connections are not helpful, but I cannot do anything about it. The citizens who do communicate and connect nevertheless pursue the happiness they want rather than change to my idea of happiness, and vice versa.

I have never been able to figure out what is best for society as a whole. I do, however, promote the use of the U.S. Preamble’s proposition and the-objective-truth, which ultimately pursues the-literal-truth. Participants must interpret the U.S. Preamble for today and use it for mutual, comprehensive safety and security among fellow citizens and to encourage dissidents to join. Careful consideration shows that the U.S. Preamble does not specify standards by which its public disciplines of by and for the citizens may be judged. In other words, no one knows how beneficial the available future may be.

I do not know, but I always vote for my benefits as best I understand the candidates or policies. However, I never vote for my neighbor’s good, because I do not know the happiness he or she seeks.

https://www.quora.com/Does-morality-hold-humanity-back?

I think so. It’s like civilization and other coercions to conformity. The human individual needs to discover them and constrain their appeals to honesty when independence is required to develop integrity.

Think of it this way: Each human being is a small vector in humankind’s quest to discover the-objective-truth and thereby approach the perfection of the-literal-truth. He or she begins as a feral human and must accept the HIPEA---human individual power, energy, and authority---to develop integrity rather than honestly drift into infidelity.

One constraint each human faces is freedom-from oppression so as to establish the liberty-to develop the integrity required in independent behavior for mutual, comprehensive safety and security among fellow human beings.

Dissidents beg woe.

https://www.quora.com/Is-secularism-a-force-for-good?

What’s your definition of “secularism”? MW online has “indifference to or rejection or exclusion of religion and religious considerations.”

As such, secularism is at best areligious and at worst atheism, neither of which can be justified on ineluctable evidence.

Almost every person I know has a deep appreciation of two entities: fellow humans and whatever-God-is.

The fellow humans who nourish hope and comfort in a personal God and blame fellow citizens who do not believe that God have not considered the possibility that whatever-God-is holds them responsible for their arbitrary choice. While I doubt it, those who coerce non-believers to believe may be held responsible for a misguided soul.

I arrived at these thoughts out of appreciation for my wife’s responsible independence and my hope to accept her serene confidence for herself as well as mine for me. Without her, I would never have discovered my person.

Also, through her I learned to develop my own interpretation of the U.S. Preamble’s proposition. It speaks of six public disciplines, none of which is religion, to which it is neutral. Thus, it advocates separation of church from state but not secularism, in my view. What’s yours?



https://www.quora.com/Can-one-be-independent-without-freedom?

Yes.

Independence is superior to both freedom-from oppression and liberty-to act.

A civic citizen develops responsible human independence, by managing external oppression (for example, paying taxes on time in full) and controlling human appetites (for example, honoring marriage vows for selfish reasons as well as to appreciate spousal fidelity).

Spousal psychological problems are not unlike physical problems. If a spouse has somehow been unfaithful to the marriage, discovery of the infidelity should not lessen the marriage if, on discovery, the offender is convicted, remorseful, and reforms. Reform from infidelity is often on par with recovery from disease, such as cancer.

On the other hand, if the offender pretends the infidelity did not happen, infidelity prevails, and it is unlikely that the marriage can continue.

https://www.quora.com/Which-would-you-vouch-for-equality-and-equity?

I vouch for both equality and equity to the individual citizen’s opportunity to develop integrity.

Each person started as a unique human ovum. Neither insemination to a conception, gestation, delivery, nor education diminished his or her individuality. If his or her care takers did not coach and encourage development of responsible human independence, he or she is not likely to become equal to his or her potential. However, he or she may personally discover and practice responsible human independence.

The fellow citizen with highest tendency, coaching, and encouragement to accept his or her humanity---the individual power, the individual energy, and the individual authority (HIPEA) to accept integrity rather than drift into infidelity---has the highest chance to become equal to his or her potential.

However, having started as a unique human ovum, he or she may expect unique consequences. By definition, uniqueness means unequal.   

https://www.quora.com/Is-a-philosophy-of-human-civil-rights-possible?

I think so. In a civic culture, there’s only one human right: freedom-from oppression so that each person may accept the liberty-to develop independent integrity rather than submit to infidelity.

Each human ovum is unique, and insemination to conception does not lessen the individuality. With gestation and delivery and afterwards, the individual receives care as he or she makes the transition from feral infant to young adult with comprehension and intention to live a complete human life.

If the direct care takers and community (influencers) recognize that each human may accept his or her individual power, individual energy, and individual authority (HIPEA) to develop integrity rather than drift into infidelity, the influencers will coach and encourage him or her to use HIPEA for integrity more than exhort him or her to follow the past.

Thereby, influencers will appreciate the individual’s right to develop independent integrity according to his or her unique human person.

I appreciate your provocative question and hope you will comment so as to improve on this shocking reasoning about the uniqueness of each human being.

https://www.quora.com/Should-the-government-enforce-the-interpretation-of-freedom-of-speech-onto-social-media-platforms-If-this-were-to-happen-what-type-of-government-system-would-this-action-be-categorized-as?

An unconstitutional and adolescent Congress did not emerge yesterday. The first Congress, 1789-1793, was like teenaged parents who squabble over child-rearing ideas from four grandparents. Congress has been unconstitutional ever since.

The civic, civil, and legal authorizer of the amendable articles of the U.S. Constitution is the continuum of living citizens who practice the U.S. Preamble’s proposition. We know this, because the object of the 6 public disciplines is “ourselves and our Posterity,” where we are among the signers’ and ratifiers’ “Posterity” and are among the living “ourselves.” The 6 disciplines does not include religion. Constitutional amendments must conform to the U.S. Preamble’s proposition to the entity We the People of the United States.

The First Amendment, begun with 11 of 13 states represented in Congress and ratified with 14 states is unconstitutional in at least two respects. First, the religion clauses protect an institution and need to be amended to protect integrity, a human duty. Second, just as each branch of the federal government and each state is constrained, individual and media expression must be constrained. Freedom of speech and freedom of the press must be amended to responsible independence rather than freedom.

These amendments would not change the fact that the U.S. guarantees a republican form of government. Anyone who speaks of “our democracy” in the USA and does not clarify the meaning---that each non-felon adult citizen may vote under the laws of our republic---is fooling himself or herself.

Law professors

https://www.lawliberty.org/2020/02/12/the-inescapable-particularity-of-strong-gods and https://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2019/10/the-miracle-of-we

It seems to me Rogers strains at Reno’s use of lower case “god.” I prefer whatever-God-is. Imagine the humble “we” in a pledge of allegiance to our precious flag “under whatever-God-is.”

After using Reno’s “god” for many years, I chose my late friend Doug Johnson’s policy of always capitalizing God, perhaps for different reasons. Doug was an avowed atheist. That is a leap of faith I cannot take. Consequently, I see no reason to question the personal inspiration and motivation, or God, by which a fellow citizen finds hope and comfort for his or her pursuit of happiness. I do not share hopes for a soul, because my person began as a viable ovum which was inseminated by a viable spermatozoon. The human that developed therefrom has no ineluctable evidence that his person is dominated by a soul. Like Mark Twain, I put my fickle “conscience” to rest years ago. But I do not object to the civic citizen who nourishes hopes for his or her soul.

Reno has the honesty to question love as sometimes the inspiration for harm and then write, “Our hearts remain restless. They seek to rest in loyalty to strong gods worthy of love’s devotion and sacrifice.” I don’t condone such poetry and would study to express his idea so as to conform to the U.S. Preamble’s proposition.

My interpretation of the U.S. Preamble, today, for my way of living is: We the People of the United States egocentrically (selfishly) consider, communicate, collaborate, and connect to establish and maintain 6 public disciplines of by and for each living fellow citizen: integrity, justice, peace, strength, prosperity, and responsible human independence. My interpretation accurately represents the U.S. Preamble’s inference, by absence of standards for the disciplines, that both intensity and extensiveness of responsible human independence may be used to monitor success of the proposition.

I hope the U.S. Preamble as one citizen views it lends some clarity to the “gabe” question “Is this not the stated purpose of the American [proposition]?” The U.S. Preamble begins with “We” yet allows the fellow citizen to be dissident to the proposition so long as he or she does not invite law enforcement.

To: Wayne Lusvardi:

In “The Miracle of ‘We’,” online at https://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2019/10/the-miracle-of-we, Reno writes “. . . the particularity of the “we” is always a gift,” then argues that fellow humans, the “we,” are gifted with particular families and other distinctions that are precious to humankind.

I see no problem with this part of Reno’s ideas.

However, I think he could admit that love is not only questionable in some circumstances but that it is overrated in comparison with appreciation. Also, I prefer to admit that I do not know enough to represent God, so I refer to whatever-God-is. I do not think “strong gods” in juxtaposition to God is equivalent to “whatever-God-is”.

It is possible for humankind to appreciate the particularities of the “we.” I think we should, as long as the particularities do not discourage those people from participating in mutual, comprehensive safety and security.

 Facebook

https://www.facebook.com/phil.beaver.52/posts/10157997460103599

Hoping to impeach President Trump, the Democrats reduce their persons to blatant, partisan lies, creating a shameful, sustained, saga in U.S. History that ought to motivate reform by the entity We the People of the United States, who have the civic, civil, and legal political-power that is defined by the U.S. Constitution.

In (hopefully) the only Senate trial, both sides claimed justification on their differing image of U.S. Constitution, the Democrats by citing erroneous, dubious “founding fathers” and the lame “we, the people” versus the Republicans citing statutory law. However, neither side cited the U.S. civic, civil, and legal proposition nor their personal connections to We the People of the United States. Both sides claim allegiance without stating a proposition for statutory justice.

Elected and appointed officials attempt to consign constitutional responsibility to whatever-God-is. The Senate trial featured a controversial prayer each day and the coercive pledge of allegiance to America’s precious flag and to the republic it represents. Neither ceremony reflected humility before whatever-God-is. The prayer often seemed a directive to the minister’s God despite the awareness, omniscience, and omnipotence of whatever-God-is. One Senator, breaking civic, civil, and legal vows, voted as a Mormon Saint more than as a member of We the People of the United States. The Senators and the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court had their allegiances as they employed a colonial-English tradition stemming from England’s constitutional church-state partnership. Collectively, they ignore the U.S. proposition that is stated in the preamble.

Once a person accepts that whatever-God-is assigned to humankind and its individuals the responsibility to develop integrity more than egocentric satisfaction, comfort, and hope, it is difficult if not impossible to choose a personal God. The civic citizens holds humble reserve toward actual reality, unknown as it may be. A fellow citizen like that is reluctant to repeat a pledge that has the coercive, contradictory phrase “. . . under God, indivisible, with liberty.” Both "indivisible" and "liberty" smack of coercion.

It is time for this shocking reality to empower We the People of the United States to constrain its political regimes to the rule of law rather than dominance by church-state partnerships under ever changing tradition. What began as factional American Protestantism evolved to Judeo-Christianity, African-American Christianity, and other competitive private rather than public practices.

Shockingly, U.S. government bodies---local, state, and federal--- should recite the U.S. Preamble and refrain from prayer and religious pledge. This reform should happen overnight: tomorrow. Goodness represents itself and needs only expression.

“Liberty” itself, as diversely developed by each the 1689 English Revolution, the 1776 13-American-English States’ Revolution, the 1787 U.S. revolution for discipline of by and for the people, and the 1789 French Revolution seems coercive license, often bloody ruthlessness. However, “responsible human independence” empowers integrity.

The entity created in 1787, We the People of the United States, connects willing citizens for six freedoms-from human oppressions: infidelity, injustice, disturbance, weakness, poverty, and dependence. Thereby, We the People of the United States may take the liberty-to honestly pursue the integrity of responsible human independence.

The preamble to the U.S. Constitution has as subject the entity “We the People of the United States” and as object “ourselves and our Posterity.” No one knows the achievable, better future our descendants and their immigrant fellow citizens will achieve under freedom-from license and oppression so as to pursue the-objective-truth and approach the-literal-truth. The proposition, upon consideration, is so egocentrically and collectively attractive it is difficult to guess which group will accept it more readily: either our descendants or our immigrants who each want mutual, comprehensive safety and security so that fellow citizens may pursue individual happiness with civic integrity.

U.S. citizens may accept the U.S. Preamble’s proposition as soon as they consider it and interpret it for their individual behaviors for the living “ourselves and our Posterity.” Elected and appointed officials are not exempt from this wonderful opportunity for reform to the American proposition of by and for the people instead of traditional English-like church-state partnership and the consequential chaos we now experience: Diverse dissidents against statutory justice take liberty-to oppose We the People of the United States.

Let's wake up tomorrow with many fellow citizens managing a better political future for ourselves and our posterity and sharing the message. Let’s practice the U.S. Preamble’s proposition for living citizens.

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.