Putting democracy in its place

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 interpretation of its proposal as follows: “We the People of the United States consider, communicate, collaborate, and connect to practice 5 public disciplines: integrity, justice, peace, strength, and prosperity so as to encourage both living and future fellow citizens to practice responsible human independence.” I want to collaborate with the other citizens on this interpretation 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

Putting democracy in its place: not here

I get so many questions that assume everybody wants democracy, when its plain that democracy is chaos. It seems to me Europe demonstrates that democracy is ruinous. And they erroneously spend money to export their misery to the U.S.

Western thought has the hubris to try to preserve itself so intently that many scholars focus on Lockean exhaustive comment and almost no one considers Albert Einstein’s covert integrity in speaking to his audience.

The most important point Western politics might consider is that the U.S. Constitution, in Article IV, guarantees a republican form of government. As a result, the U.S. intentionally does not have one citizen one vote. And U.S. citizens might consider that preservation of dominant colonial-American politics is British rather than American.

Every citizen would serve himself or herself well by earning a personal interpretation of the preamble to the U.S. Constitution, first recognizing that its object is “ourselves and our Posterity.” That means that the living adults are charged with the civic, civil, and legal responsibility to hold local, state, and national governments accountable.

As a consequence, every elected or appointed government official has the self-interest to build ineluctable evidence that he or she is a member of We the People of the United States according to the preamble’s proposition as he or she owns it as precious personal property.

Quora

https://www.quora.com/Is-anything-the-government-does-not-political-Should-it-be?

Serving and promoting responsible human independence is essential to personal happiness with civic integrity.

In Merriam-Webster online I found a definition for “politics” hoping to avoid the redundancy of “political government”. Politics is “the total complex of relations between people living in society.” At stake is the power to limit, by arbitrary coercion or force, a fellow citizen’s responsible human independence.

Liberty is often construed as license or arbitrary “rights”, for example, to disrupt, damage, injure, or kill, and is therefore a questionable goal. Limiting disciplined independence is not a noble intention.

I think government does not but should encourage voluntary public-discipline among fellow citizens and count on exemplary integrity to motivate errant citizens to reform for self-interest. However, government agents, whether elected or not, employ coercion and force in order to control fellow citizens. Governments have gravitated so far into repression of responsible human independence that the government agent who considers himself or herself a fellow citizen is rare. Methods vary.

In the U.S., the government has practiced Chapter XI Machiavellianism (https://www.constitution.org/mac/prince11.htm) from colonial foundations, beginning in 1607 or earlier. The pro-British faction of colonial leaders repressed the U.S. proposition won substantially by France at Yorktown, VA in 1781.

Many judges and lawyers today take for granted Blackstone citations as authority respecting U.S. law. The modern lawyer who cites “the founders” may be an opponent of the 1787 U.S. Constitution. He or she may be advocating the arguments not of the 1787 framers or more importantly the signers on September 17, 1787, but of 13^th to 18^th century England. Being kinder to myself than Nicolo was, I consider myself an avid dreamer as I work to establish the U.S. proposition that is offered in the preamble to the U.S. Constitution (the U.S. Preamble).

My civic priority for the past 2 decades has been to promote revising the First Amendment so as to encourage human integrity, a fellow-citizen’s self-interest, rather than religion, a business founded in believers’ private hopes and comforts against the unknown. No fellow citizen publicly presents his or her personal God for evaluation by either fellow citizens or whatever-God-is: a personal God is a private choice in the absence of ineluctable evidence for whatever-God-is.

That work, through public library meetings wherein I learned to LISTEN so as to improve led to the proposal for every fellow citizen to earn and own a personal interpretation of the U.S. Preamble’s proposition by which to conduct a self-interested human lifetime. I share my interpretation in hopes that criticism by fellow citizens will improve it.

My latest interpretation is:  “We the People of the United States consider, communicate, collaborate, and connect to practice 5 public disciplines: integrity, justice, peace, strength, and prosperity so as to encourage both living and future fellow citizens to practice responsible human independence.”

I want to collaborate with the other citizens on this interpretation and theirs yet would preserve the original, 1787, text, unless it is amended by the people. The original is:  “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence [sic.], promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

Hopefully soon, the U.S. will have an achievable better future wherein local, state, and national civic, civil, and legal meetings begin with recitation of the U.S. Preamble each citizen thinking of the civic lifestyle he or she aspires to rather than pretentious prayer and coercive pledge to something other than responsible human independence.

https://www.quora.com/Do-you-consider-yourself-to-be-more-intelligent-than-the-state-government-that-rules-over-you?

No.

I consider them more powerful, energetic, and authoritative than me. However, I am sovereign over my responsible human independence. Thus, I pay my taxes on time, meanwhile writing that it is unjust to saddle future citizens for debt payments adults incurred.

Also, for over 20 years I have urged amendment of civil “freedom of religion” to civic encouragement of integrity. I think separation of church and state is an individual, fellow-citizens’ responsibility.

https://www.quora.com/What-are-the-impacts-of-human-rights-to-an-individuals-liberty?

My specific “human rights history” search got 1975 hits (https://plato.stanford.edu/search/searcher.py?query=Human+rights+history). I would read the first 10 essays to gain an initial understanding.

My opinion is that “human rights” is a construct by which diverse tyrants persuade gullible fellow citizens to rely on them. The most egregious tyranny I know of is “freedom of religion” by which the people may be babbled to neglect disciplined human independence (rather than liberty).

The human being has the individual power, the individual energy, and the individual authority (HIPEA) with which to choose either integrity to the-literal-truth or infidelity. Most cultures teach their youth to seek a higher power. As soon as one proves unreliable, the civil citizen seeks another higher power, thereby never discovering HIPEA much less using it to develop integrity. The search for higher power rages on for an eternity. Thus, the opportunity to develop integrity---perhaps the only valid human right---is discouraged.

The proposed culture I know of that encourages integrity rather than dependence on a mysterious higher power is the neglected U.S. under the preamble to the U.S. Constitution (the U.S. Preamble) and the-literal-truth.

Nine states regressed the potential for development of the U.S. Preamble’s people’s proposition when they ratified the 1787 U.S. Constitution on June 21, 1788, with the unfortunate agreement that the First Congress would amend the draft to include an English-like Bill of Rights and perhaps more. I wish some of the 4 dissident states would have objected and suggested the alternate of ratification without amendment and won the debate.

The First Congress egregiously partnered with the factional Protestant churches to self-proclaim congressional divinity on par with the Church of England-Parliament divinity in England. The U.S. extols separation of church and state but practices Chapter XI Machiavellianism; https://www.constitution.org/mac/prince11.htm. Only the people can terminate the tyranny.

The individual citizen has the opportunity to personally separate church and state so as to develop human equity under statutory justice no matter what the individual’s spiritual hopes and comforts may be. If so, he or she may press for amendment of the First Amendment so as to encourage integrity, a human self-interest, instead of defending religion, a business institution some citizens want to support.

I think the purpose of the construct “human rights” is contrived by tyrants who would distract fellow citizens from the right to develop integrity rather than to tolerate infidelity.



https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-likelihood-of-revolution-in-the-West-and-a-subsequent-suppression-of-democracies?

There’s no time for revolution against actual reality or the-literal-truth, so the more likely reaction to the 2020 attack on responsible human independence is reform.

The West and its influence on the U.S. discipline for human independence has exacerbated the chaos of democracy, refusing the integrity of human equity under statutory justice. That is, continual amendment of written law and its enforcement so as to approach perfect justice, in writing. Only the people who agree to that proposition may live to achieve it, and, so far, no people’s culture has chosen to develop it.

Commensurate with this proposition, the U.S. has pretended the separation of church and state under the fallacy of religious freedom. Under Chapter XI Machiavellianism (https://www.constitution.org/mac/prince11.htm), most of the people have accepted the ruse. Only a few U.S. citizens accept that “ourselves and our Posterity,” the objects of public self-discipline specified in the preamble to the U.S. Constitution (the U.S. Preamble), is the continuum of living citizens. Thus, the current generation is in charge of responsible human independence in the USA. We may reform to individual separation of church and state by revising the U.S. Constitution’s Amendment I so as to encourage integrity, a human self-interest, rather than defend religion, a business enterprise.

For the possible reform to occur, most U.S. citizens must earn their personal interpretation of the U.S. Preamble’s abstract 52 words. Once earned, most citizens will regard their interpretation as a prized property.

I share my interpretation not only to promote the U.S. Preamble’s proposition but to LISTEN to fellow-citizens’ reactions, whether negative or positive, for opportunity to improve my way of living.

My cautionary interpretation seems inspiring:  We the People of the United States intentionally discipline ourselves to both avoid and discourage deceit, injustice, disruption, weakness, and poverty in order to empower responsible human independence to living and future citizens. When some voters are disrupting, wrecking property, or injuring fellow citizens for “liberty” or “equality” or “solidarity,” I want independence.

Of course, I hope dominance of the U.S. Preamble’s proposition for civic integrity will take hold in the USA, beginning in my home town, Baton Rouge, Louisiana. However, it is not critical where reform to self-discipline in order to benefit from responsible human independence begins. It is alright for the USA to enjoin a republican form of government to develop statutory justice, even if we are mimicking another nation’s trust and commitment in the-objective-truth when the-literal-truth is unknown.

What if Congress’s separate bodies, the House and the Senate, began each session not with a coercive pledge of allegiance and a clergyman’s prayer that may offend whatever-God-is, but with a unison recitation of the U.S. Preamble, each elected official interpreting the 52 words so as to represent his or her constituents?

To Snorri Bjarnason:

Not knowing you, I cannot write in your words, but have written my response to your question. If you choose to explore it, you could ask a question I can answer.

Alternately, you could read the preamble to the U.S. Constitution, below, and then the interpretation I shared in my original response, repeated further below, then dialogue.

Original, 1787: We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

My cautionary interpretation: We the People of the United States intentionally discipline ourselves to both avoid and discourage deceit, injustice, disruption, weakness, and poverty in order to empower responsible human independence to living and future citizens.

I hope you find value in an achievable future culture that similarly promotes responsible human independence to the continuum of living citizens, and I would be happy to communicate more about it.

https://www.quora.com/unanswered/What-are-the-latest-examples-of-gender-equality?

Two examples come to mind right away: 1) preservation of the woman’s opportunity to decide whether to empower, energize, and authorize her fertilized ovum to embark on the nearly impossible transition to a human being who accepts HIPEA (human, individual power, energy, and authority) and uses it to develop integrity and 2) dominant appreciation of physics and its progeny (chemistry, biology, psychology, and imagination) in the acceptance of the human individual’s gender. In both cases, the-objective-truth based on ineluctable evidence, if not the-literal-truth, prevails over errant personal or collective opinion.

The trajectory of these two issues is an achievable better future for acceptance of manhood. First, the aware and humble male knows that a woman is likely a fertile crowd. That is, during her fertile years, she may deliver some 400 viable ova. At any moment, she has commitments to at least two lives: hers and her ova. The authentic male is aware of this fact and has the integrity to protect the woman and the viable ova from imposition of his sexual desire. In fact, he cannot maintain an erect, because the image of the crowd discourages his excitement. Second, the authentic male overcomes heterophobia: the erroneous fear of taking, in monogamy for life, the responsibility for a woman and the children they may together create.

Because of a growing doubt of human constructs (reason) and appreciation for the-objective-truth’s discovery, amendable with new tools of perception so as to approach the-literal-truth, we are at the abyss and are on the upward path toward civic, civil, and legal integrity. I celebrate these times!

https://www.quora.com/unanswered/How-do-you-protect-and-promote-the-common-good-in-this-present-generation-at-home?

First, consider that “common good” is an 18th century politically correct philosophy coming to the U.S. from Englishman John Locke (d. 1704) and furthered by erroneous scholars who comment on his thinking; https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/common-good/. We live in the age after both Ralph Waldo Emerson (d. 1882) and Albert Einstein (d. 1955). Emerson suggested that human living is to develop perfection until death.  Einstein suggested that both physics (the object of study) and integrity (the practice of admitting that you don’t know what you don’t know) come from the same source.

Since each human ovum is unique and its transition to his or her maturity only increases psychological distinctions, anyone who talks of common good would like to civilize others to his or her preferences. The Bible thumper seeks to pick your pocket. “The common good” is coercive bemusement by someone who intends to control people who will submit. Locke claimed to speak for whatever-God-is; no humble human would express such hubris regarding the unknown. In other words, the prudent human may have his or her personal God for hope and comfort but retains sufficient humility toward whatever-God-is.

However, there is a desire that most humans share: mutual, comprehensive safety and security. In other words, the community discipline that encourages each individual to responsibly pursue the happiness he or she perceives rather than to accept the happiness someone else prescribed for him or her.

I know of only one proposal for a culture dominated by individual happiness with civic integrity: the proposition that is expressed in the preamble to the U.S. Constitution (the U.S. Preamble’s proposition). The proposition seems substantially neglected, so the resiliency of most U.S. citizens seems a mystery. Nevertheless, the world seems to want the U.S. way of living and to destroy it if it seems out of reach.

I write continually to encourage people to earn their personal interpretation of the U.S. preamble so as to order their civic, civil, and legal lives while privately maintaining any spirituality they prefer. I share my interpretation hoping fellow citizens will improve my way of living.

My cautionary interpretation is:  We the People of the United States intentionally discipline ourselves to both avoid and discourage deceit, injustice, disruption, weakness, and poverty in order to empower responsible human independence to living and future citizens. When some voters are disrupting, wrecking property, or injuring fellow citizens for “liberty” or “equality” or “solidarity,” I want independence.

John Locke wrote of the common good as virtue motivated by whatever-God-is. The U.S. preamble accepts that whatever-God-is assigned to the individual citizen responsibility for personal happiness and civic integrity. It would not surprise me if England reforms before America does, but my preference is for the reform to emanate from Baton Rouge, Louisiana, my home town.

https://www.quora.com/How-have-your-political-beliefs-changed-over-time?

When I was eleven (1954) it did not bother me to add to the pledge of allegiance to the flag “under God.” After all, Mom wanted me to be a God fearing Southern Baptist and Dad wanted me to be an independent-thinking Southern Baptist. Today, I think the pledge itself is an affront to responsible human independence: Every U.S. elected or appointed official should demonstrate trust-in and commitment to the proposition that is stated in the preamble to the U.S. Constitution (the U.S. Preamble).

I was too young to articulate perception then that whatever-God-is would not be weak enough to express the threat in Revelation 22:18, CJB, “I warn everyone hearing the words of the prophecy in this book that if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues written in this book.” Mom and Dad were such good material providers I tried to force myself into their hopes for me for four more decades.

Now in my 8^th decade, I articulate almost monthly that the partnership of church and state ruins the U.S. republic and that the U.S. First Amendment must be reformed so as to encourage integrity, a human self-interest, rather than religion, an institutional business that only believers and tyrants want.

I do not object to believer’s harmless passions any more than I would object to classical music. However, fellow citizens may encourage each other to reserve a little humility toward whatever-God-is, perchance attempting to impose a personal God on other believers and non-believers begs woe.

The U.S. has observed since March 4, 1789, that the tyranny of Congressional divine-pretense will prevail until We the People of the United States under the civic, civil, and legal power of the U.S. Preamble separate church and state. Religion is excluded from the public disciplines the people’s proposition prescribes.

My political belief in my 8^th decade is that separation of church from state is essential to responsible, human self-interest.

https://www.quora.com/What-does-the-phrase-existence-precedes-essence-mean-and-how-does-it-relate-to-society?

Looking at it from Einstein’s view (physics and integrity come from the same ineluctable evidence) rather than from Sartre’s expression, it means a feral infant can become the unique adult he or she may achieve in either integrity or infidelity to the-literal-truth. If he or she chooses fidelity, paths will differ according to genes, memes, and human error made and corrected.

The choice of infidelity is substantially influenced by the confused, conflicted community and world the infant is born into. Chances of the adolescent accepting human individual power, energy, and authority (HIPEA) are slim. Development of integrity is unlikely, since the individual must accept “I do not know,” when that is so. Choosing to develop crime, tyranny, or other abuse of people who are developing integrity seems attractive.

It takes about 3 decades for a human infant to transition to young adult with comprehension and intent to live a complete human life. While the advantage of HIPEA for integrity can be encouraged, neither can be taught: Self-interest to develop your unique human being must be experienced and observed. Human development can begin the moment the individual perceives the self-interest.

https://www.quora.com/How-can-I-fight-for-equality-and-fair-justice-for-all-people?

First, let me suggest that equity under statutory justice is more practical. After all, humans are unique and cannot achieve equality. And fairness is usually unjust---somebody got the short in the compromise.

Survey the possibilities and make a choice, discuss it with anyone who will dialogue with you, and LISTEN to their response. Public libraries are good places to hold meetings. Consider both negative and positive comments and make changes to your presentation if you want to. Read ancient and modern political theory. When something seems the-literal-truth, reread every five years. Keep notes. When a writer disagrees with you, note why and if you think he or she is pushing an ideology rather than pursuing the-literal-truth, switch to the next writer on your list. Never trust a scholar, because he or she is pursuing funding from some sponsor. Decide whether you will try to write for the audience or write what you want to say with precision the audience will understand and let them manage their opinions. Otherwise, stay your course.

In this way, I have, over the course of my adulthood changed my interpretation of the preamble to the U.S. Constitution as a fixed goal “the founders” set in 1787 to a commitment that has not yet taken hold. I work to encourage every U.S. citizen to secure as prized personal property his or her interpretation of the U.S. Preamble’s proposition as a concrete basis for his or her civic, civil, and legal way of living and for his or her descendants’ independence.

My cautionary interpretation, which I share hoping to receive criticism, is: We the People of the United States intentionally discipline ourselves to both avoid and discourage deceit, injustice, disruption, weakness, and poverty in order to empower responsible human independence to living and future citizens.

When some voters are disrupting, wrecking property, and injuring fellow citizens for “liberty” or “equality” or “solidarity,” I want independence.



https://www.quora.com/What-do-you-think-of-the-principle-of-equality-before-the-law?

I do not like “equality before the law.” In the second instance, the law is often unjust; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chevron_U.S.A.,_Inc._v._Natural_Resources_Defense_Council,_Inc.. In the first instance, human beings are unique and independent, so equality is out of the question.

I prefer an interpretation of a principle commented on by a Greek 2,400 years ago: Humans have the individual power, energy, and authority (HIPEA) to develop statutory justice; that is, written law-enforcement that the living people and future people improve each time injustice is discovered so that the ultimate human awareness is approaching the-literal-truth.

Each human may accept HIPEA and use it to develop either integrity to the-literal-truth (by admitting to self “I don’t know” when that is so) or infidelity. Humans who accept HIPEA and use it for integrity help develop equity under statutory justice. In other words, they are civic citizens and encourage fellow citizens to join the people’s proposition.

In the U.S., the people’s proposition is offered in the preamble to the U.S. Constitution: disciplined human independence. Every citizen may exercise the opportunity to have as precious psychological property their personal interpretation of the preamble for use in developing his or her civic, civil, and legal way of living for self and descendants.

https://www.quora.com/Why-should-leaders-promote-fairness-and-equality?

Fellow citizens who behave for mutual, comprehensive safety and security are leaders.

A Greek suggested 2400 years ago that human persons may develop equity under statutory justice. That is, under written law enforcement that is continually improved each time injustice is discovered, so that the people, fellow citizens, are constantly developing perfect justice.

Some fellow citizens reject any agreement for equity under justice and, in so doing, risk subjugation to existing law enforcement, imperfect as it may be. Some scholars erroneously advocate fairness as justice, not taking into account equity in responsibility. At any time, fellow citizens may perceive the self-interest of equity under justice and self-discipline.

In the U.S., each citizen may own a personal interpretation of the U.S. Preamble by which to develop either civic integrity or infidelity to justice. My cautionary interpretation, which I share hoping to receive suggestions for improvement, is:  We the People of the United States intentionally discipline ourselves to both avoid and discourage deceit, injustice, disruption, weakness, and poverty in order to empower responsible human independence to living and future citizens. When some voters are disrupting, wrecking property, and injuring fellow citizens for “liberty” or “equality” or “solidarity,” I want independence.

https://www.quora.com/Can-you-give-an-example-of-something-that-you-would-refer-to-as-the-new-normal?

I’d like education systems worldwide, or at least in municipalities, states, and the USA, to adapt to human-encouragement systems so as to help fellow citizens become the ultimate human they may be rather than to develop “the workers we need”. Objective would be to encourage and coach the following acceptances for recipients, young and old:

1.    The human species is in charge of the Earth, because independent humans have both the awareness and grammar by which to develop integrity rather than tolerate infidelity to the-literal-truth.

2.    This is so, because whatever-God-is assigned to humankind the responsibility for maintaining Earth. In other words, perhaps whatever-God-is is physics: the object of research of the ineluctable evidence to explain everything that actually is. Or, ironically, perhaps the good ultimate humankind may develop is God. In other words, instead of labelling good “God” it is sufficient to develop “good”. If this principle of humankind’s potential good is wrong, it is up to whatever-God-is rather than a human agency to so inform humans.

3.    The human person has the individual power, the individual energy, and the individual authority (HIPEA) to choose to develop either integrity to the-literal-truth or infidelity. Choosing the latter begs woe. However, some people think crime, tyranny, and other forms of abuse pay them.

4.    Erroneous fellow citizens may reform any time they perceive the self-interest in developing integrity. In the meantime, they may encounter statutory law-enforcement.

5.    Humans who choose integrity live so as to promote human equity under statutory justice. In other words, they maintain written law and improve it when injustice is discovered. Thereby, they may approach the perfection of statutory justice. Integrity informs errant fellow citizens to reform, not only to avoid law enforcement but for self-interest.

6.    In the U.S., the people’s agreement to self-disciplined human independence is offered in the preamble to the U.S. Constitution (the U.S. Preamble). Every citizen may earn his or her interpretation of the U.S. Preamble’s people’s proposition for civic, civil, and legal living to be among his or her most prized possessions. The U.S. Preamble protects his or her opportunity to develop integrity rather than submit to infidelity.

7.    So far, capitalism under the rule of amendable law, seems the best form of government. Clearly, democracy involves no agreement to equity under statutory justice and thus is among the worst forms of human chaos.

8.    The world is offered an achievable better future under 1) people’s agreements like the U.S. Preamble or better and 2) developing a journal of discovery of the-literal-truth. I contribute to Wikipedia for that function, making documented corrections when I discover errors. (I cannot contribute in many forums, because I do not have a PhD in any profession, many of which are alien to the U.S. Preamble’s proposition.)

It takes about 3 decades for a human infant to transition himself or herself into a young adult with the comprehension and intentions to live his or her ultimate life. I’d like personal awareness of that opportunity to become the new norm.

I write to learn and would appreciate comments.

https://www.quora.com/unanswered/What-is-the-merit-of-a-multi-party-democracy?

None; only more diverse chaos.

Democracy involves no civic, civil, and legal trust and commitment and therefore has no merit. That is why the U.S. Constitution guarantees (in Article IV) a republican form of government: the rule of amendable law.

The grounding principle was expressed by a Greek 2,400 years ago, and he was probably commenting on earlier suggestions:  Humans can develop equity under statutory justice.

Statutory justice is written law that is continually improved by discovery of injustice and consequential improvement of the statute.

Successful republics have a citizen’s agreement that intentionally or not reflects this Greek idea. In the US, the fellow citizen’s proposition is offered in the U.S. Preamble, which citizens may ignore at their own risks.

Each citizen may own a personal interpretation of the U.S. Preamble by which to develop either civic integrity or infidelity to justice. My cautionary interpretation, which I share hoping to receive suggestions for improvement, is:  We the People of the United States intentionally discipline ourselves to both avoid and discourage deceit, injustice, disruption, weakness, and poverty in order to empower responsible human independence to living and future citizens. When the mob is disrupting, wrecking property, and injuring fellow citizens for “liberty” I want independence.

Democracy offers chaos while the rule of amendable, written law offers development of statutory justice.

To Allan Richardson:

I doubt “most people” agree with your views. If most agreed and the U.S. was a democracy, President Trump would not be President.

There’s nothing in your reply that reflects the actual reality that the U.S. Constitution begins with a people’s proposition and that you are free to interpret the proposition to your benefit: either to develop human equity under statutory justice or to oppose the proposition for your reasons. Further, you ignore the U.S. Constitution, Article IV, which promises a republican form of government.

In your reply you represent “we,” without defining the we according to the U.S. Preamble. Try this: We the People of the United States trust-in and commit to the proposition that is herein offered to fellow citizens. The U.S. Constitution’s amendable articles follow. I assert that the “we” in your reply does not accept the people’s proposition for equity under statutory justice. Instead, they want what they want and they demand it now, differing on both what and when and thus producing chaos.



https://www.quora.com/What-other-options-are-there-for-the-reduction-of-crime-in-society-if-punishment-doesnt-work?

Just as in short order We the People of the United States will defeat the Chinese virus of 2019, we may reform U.S. Education Departments---local, state, and national---to Human Encouragement Departments. Let me explain.

https://www.quora.com/Is-every-action-from-self-interest?

I think so. However, cultures inculcate falsehoods that bemuse adults with false goals: either accept the civilization’s authority or discover a reliable higher power. Neither whatever-God-is nor government usurps human individual power, energy, and authority (HIPEA). Each person uses his or her HIPEA to develop either integrity to the-literal-truth or infidelity.

It seems self-evident that integrity is in the individual’s self-interest. Integrity is a practice: examining the ineluctable evidence to comprehend a concern, a mirage, or a discovery; if there’s no evidence, either dismissing the mirage or accepting that you don’t know the-objective-truth about the concern; with discovery do the work to understand how to benefit; publicly behave for the benefit and share the understanding; adopt improvements fellow citizens may suggest; remain open to new ineluctable evidence that amends comprehension of the discovery and if so, repeat the process. This practice may achieve or approach the-literal-truth.

Confronted with the question, Does whatever-God-is control the unfolding of events? I respond, “I don’t know. I do not think so.”

I think a better future is attainable by teaching youths the enormity of information humankind owns, how to think independently rather than for the professor’s approval, to accept HIPEA and use it to practice integrity, to accept the U.S. Preamble’s proposition, and to appreciate the-literal-truth, which often demands the response, “I don’t know.”

The U.S. Preamble’s importance seem evident in my cautionary interpretation: We the People of the United States intentionally discipline ourselves to both avoid and discourage deceit, injustice, disruption, weakness, and poverty in order to empower responsible human independence to living and future citizens. When the mob is disrupting, wrecking property, and injuring fellow citizens for “liberty” I want independence.

I think newborns who are encouraged and coached to accept his or her HIPEA and use it to develop integrity, a high percentage will live complete human lives with fewer infidelities.

https://www.quora.com/What-are-your-thoughts-about-authoritarian-thinking-and-those-who-project-it?

I am grateful I read your question.

I did a Google search on the phrase “authoritarian thinking” and found “The authoritarian personality is a personality type characterized by extreme obedience and unquestioning respect for and submission to the authority of a person external to the self, which is realized through the oppression of subordinate people,” reference: Authoritarian personality - Wikipedia.

The theory is attributed to Erich Fromm, not among my favorite thinkers. “Fromm extolled the virtues of humans taking independent action and using reason to establish moral values rather than adhering to authoritarian moral values.” Erich Fromm - Wikipedia. I think integrity requires discovery and best use of physics and its progeny—-mathematics, chemistry, biology, psychology, fiction, reason, speculation, etc. In practice, the person who has not learned the ineluctable evidence that may lead to the-literal-truth must accept “I don’t know.” Reason cannot compete with physics, the object of study.

My writing is often called “condescending,” controlling, dominating, and such. If so, it is not my personality but the authority I adhere to.

I admit to one assumption about fellow persons: People divide on either human behavior for mutual, comprehensive safety and security or dissidence. The dissident can reform any time he or she wants to. And upon reforming he or she can behave, provided nothing has come to public attention that required legal constraint.

This principle was suggested by a Greek over 2,400 years ago, in my interpretation: Human individuals may develop equity under statutory justice. They may continually improve written law toward perfection.

Statutory justice is discovered through the-literal-truth rather than by arbitrary laws. The-literal-truth is discovered by understanding the ineluctable evidence and how to benefit from it. Neither reason, revelation, speculation, whatever-God-is, nor government usurps the-literal-truth.

The-literal-truth is pursued by discovering the-objective-truth that is observable as ineluctable evidence. Perhaps there are modifications when new instruments for observation are invented, and ultimately the-literal-truth is obtained.

I think I submit to authoritarian thinking in appreciation of physics, and that positions me with responsible human independence. When the mob is shouting “Do it for our liberty,” I do not join, so as to not contribute to loss and misery.

I work to develop my trust-in and commitment-to the-literal-truth by presenting my arguments to fellow citizens with clarity so as to hear and use improvements they offer.

Paul Trejo:

Regarding Authoritarian thinking, I agree with Socrates, Plato and Aristotle. Here’s a simple summary:

There are three basic motivations of human behavior: Appetite, Emotion and Reason.

Some people (perhaps the majority) are motivated mainly by Appetites.

Some people (perhaps a large minority) are motivated mainly by Emotions.

Some people (perhaps a small minority) are motivated mainly by Reason.

A well-ordered city ought to run by those motivated by Reason, supported by those motivated by Emotions, and followed by those motivated by Appetites.

The same principal applies to an individual. We all have Appetites that must be fulfilled. We all have the potential for strong Emotions that enrich our lives and control our Appetites as needed. We all have the potential for Reason. A well-ordered individual guides life by Reason, supported by Emotions, and followed by Appetites.

Thus, Self-control (Moderation) is the key to a well-ordered city, and also the key to a well-ordered individual life.

Back to the question — where does Authoritarian thinking fit into this paradigm? In my reading, it fits into the pattern of motivation by Emotions. The Authoritarian has sufficient Self-control to prevent the Appetites from running wild. That is its strength.

Yet the Authoritarian still lacks the Self-control to allow Reason to guide decisions on the planes of city life and individual life.

This is a decent definition of the Authoritarian — in lieu of Reason, the Authoritarian substitutes Authority: “because I said so!” and, “because tradition said so!” and so forth.

There is still not enough patience and Self-control to think things through for each individual case. Thus, the Authoritarian will appear hasty — even to his or her friends. Clearly, the Authoritarian is useful in preventing the Appetites from running wild. (The Appetites would probably sell the city itself to the highest bidder.)

Yet the Authoritarian cannot think clearly enough to allow Reason to rule — and that is a serious flaw in governance — according to Socrates, Plato and Aristotle.

To Paul Trejo:

My impressions from the Greeks (and 1 Italian) don’t rely on answers as much as questions. Like Jesus, Socrates did not write, so I perceive reading Plato opinion about Socrates.

Do men label the good “God” as an alibi against practicing civic, civil, or legal discipline?

Is appreciation higher than love? Does the appreciative citizen help develop human equity under statutory justice?

Can a citizen help develop statutory justice by escaping written law and its enforcement?

Is appreciation’s greatest power that it neither initiates nor tolerates harm to or from any person or civic association?

Can the partnership of church and state abuse believers without risking wealth and power?

These Greek questions (the latter more Chapter XI Machiavellianism) seem answered in the preamble to the US Constitution.

After the Committee of Style received the draft U.S. Preamble on September 8, 1787, they added a citizen’s proposition. Every living citizen ought to interpret it so as to own a civic, civil, and legal way of living according to the happiness and civic integrity he or she seeks. Citizens are free to ignore the U.S. Preamble’s proposition but beg woe in so doing.

I think my version with antonyms to the 1787 goals makes the references plain:  We the People of the United States intentionally discipline ourselves to both avoid and discourage deceit, injustice, disruption, weakness, and poverty in order to empower responsible human independence to living and future citizens. When the mob is disrupting, wrecking, and harming fellow citizens for “liberty” I want independence.

https://www.quora.com/Without-political-corruption-would-there-be-universal-harmony-and-good-will?

No, but a proposal to reform to an achievable better future exists.

The human being is the most broadly aware of all species and the leading edge of humans develop grammar so as to accelerate comprehension of the-literal-truth and how to benefit from it.

Among the distribution problems in the human march to the-literal-truth are 1) human progress at any moment in the unfolding history, 2) the chronological age of the individual human being, and 3) the individual’s psychological acceleration toward maturity.

The mature human being has the individual power, energy, and authority (HIPEA) to develop either integrity to the-literal-truth or infidelity.

Most cultures erroneously inculcate the belief that a human needs a higher power for both life and afterdeath intentions. This belief regresses a believer’s chances of accepting HIPEA and using it to develop integrity. Consequently, most humans drift into infidelity before they realize that they would prefer integrity. Infidelity can be corrected, but banal habits cut short the path to integrity.

As a consequence of these considerations, cultures ought to encourage citizens to separate church and state, recognizing that church is a natural result of 1) human contention with the unknowns in life and 2) the human tendency to want to secure a personally desired future. Some people are unable to develop hope without proof and therefore adopt beliefs regardless of ineluctable evidence of flaws. The afterdeaths I considered are 1) everlasting life in heaven, 2) reincarnation as a higher being, and 3) appreciation during life. I choose the latter hope.

Even if cultures reform, as I think most will, there will always be people who cannot wait for the ultimate awareness humankind can achieve. Therefore, there will always be a need for a proposal for human equity under statutory justice, a perfection that is approachable if not achievable as evolution unfolds.

A civic, civil, and legal proposition to develop statutory justice is offered in the U.S. Preamble: its premise is self-discipline for responsible human independence among fellow citizens.

https://www.quora.com/What-if-the-US-was-not-a-democracy?

The U.S. is already not a democracy. The U.S. Constitution established the rule of written-law enforcement with many provisions to ruin democracy so as to guarantee a republican form of government. See the U.S. Constitution, Article IV.

For example, the U.S. Supreme court cannot make laws; selects issues to consider; and justices are nominated by the President to serve on approval by the Senate and serve for life, if they commit no impeachable acts during service.

The people who influence the public to think the U.S. is a democracy are aliens using the term, whether by ignorance or by intent, whether domestic or foreign, to try to ruin the U.S. republican rule of written law. For example, some criminals think crime pays. Some tyrants enjoy infidelity. Since many fellow citizens neither comprehend nor accept the proposition that We the People of the United States offer in the U.S. Preamble, Americans are generally gullible to alien influence. However, so far, the republic has been preserved as we witnessed in the recent impeachment of the duly elected President Donald J. Trump merely because the Democrat Party is jealous of the rule of law. Fortunately, despite a religious saint rather than civic, civil, and legal Senator, the U.S. Senate disapproved the Democrat Party’s unconstitutional bid for impeachment.

Such tyranny is not new. The original deep state in America influenced preservation of colonial British-American traditions so as to make Congress seem like deity on par with Parliament with its constitutional partnership with the Church of England (26 seats). Instead of supporting the development of the integrity of statutory justice, as tacitly proposed in the U.S. Preamble (1787), the First Congress hired congressional ministers at the civic, civil, and legal expense of the continuum of living and future citizens (1789). More egregiously, they ratified in 1791 protection of religion, a business institution, instead of integrity, a citizen’s duty.

Republicanism under the rule of law is difficult for some fellow citizens to accept. This seems especially true for some elected or appointed officials, such as Democrats in both the House of Representative and in the Senate. Opposing the development of statutory justice alienates the fellow citizen from the U.S. Preamble’s proposition.

Law professors

https://lawliberty.org/book-review/the-graces-of-flannery-oconnor/

O'Connor's (I think erroneous) opposition to Emerson is precious to me. Two Edmondson quotations stand out.



Gordon expressed rare hubris: “people who are consciously rooted and grounded in the faith . . . don’t have to spend time trying to figure out what moral order prevails in the universe.” I wonder how whatever-God-is reacts to Gordon’s neglect.



I can’t fault O’Connor’s conclusion, “I have about decided that form is one’s moral background transposed to the subject at hand.”



I am eternally grateful to O’Connor for her secretive honesty in violence against her nemesis’s integrity. Ralph Waldo Emerson wrote clear, well-grounded assertion that the Church ruined Jesus’s human discovery: “One man was true to what is in you and me. He saw that God incarnates himself in man, and evermore goes forth anew to take possession of his world.”



O’Connor’s posthumously published non-fiction book, “Mystery and Manors,” exploits mystery to discount ineluctable evidence. She shrouds in transubstantiation Ralph Waldo Emerson’s most precious message:  Jesus really meant it when he suggested that humans can use their individual power, energy, and authority (HIPEA) to develop integrity rather than to tolerate the Church’s infidelity.



First, O’Connor establishes passion for mystery rather than for [the-objective-truth if not the-literal-truth], as follows:



On "mystery", Page 31, “Belief in Christian dogma . . . frees the storyteller to observe. It is not a set of rules which fixes what he sees in the world. It affects his writing primarily by guaranteeing his respect for mystery.” Then on "truth", Page 81, “The artist uses his reason to discover an answering reason in everything he sees. For him, to be reasonable is to find [in something] the spirit which makes it itself. It is to intrude upon the timeless, and that is only done by the violence of a single minded respect for the truth.”



She discounts the HIPEA fellow humans may use to develop personal perfection, as follows:



On Page 140, “And if the student finds that [the text] is not to his taste? Well, that is regrettable. Most regrettable. His taste should not be consulted:  it is being formed.” On Page 43 O’Connor secretly disputes Emerson’s text to regretting readers such as her, “Usually I think what is meant by [compassion] is that the writer excuses all human weakness because human weakness is human.”



However, she leaves to mystery whether or not her objection is that Emerson concluded Jesus was a man. On Page 161 she instead castigates Emerson’s break from Christian mystery: “When Emerson decided, in 1832, that he could no longer celebrate the Lord’s Supper unless the bread and wine were removed, an important step in the vaporization of religion in American was taken, and the spirit of that step has continued apace.” O’Connor expresses violent passion against Emerson’s claim that Christianity ruins Jesus’s message (as I perceive it): the human being may choose to develop integrity rather than drift into infidelity to his or her unique perfection.



The human individual can be good by choice and thereby represent whatever-God-is rather than doctrine.


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.