Domestic aliens to We the People of the United States

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 fellow citizens and future citizens to take advantage of responsible human independence.” I want to improve my interpretation by listening to other citizens and their interpretations yet would preserve the original, 1787, text, unless it is amended by the people.

It seems the Supreme Court occasionally refers to it, and 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

Domestic aliens to We the People of the United States

Neither “the founders” nor “the framers” nor the 12 states who sent delegates to the 1787 constitutional convention in Philadelphia established the U.S. that is abstractly proposed in the preamble to the U.S. Constitution (the U.S. Preamble). It was ratified by citizens’ representatives of 9/12 states under amendment obligations of June 21, 1788. Two states joined the U.S. before operations began on March 4, 1789. Congress with ten of 14 states ratified the negotiated amendments, the Bill of Rights in 1791, activating a system of government that conflicts with the U.S. Preamble.

The First Amendment’s religion clauses protect a business enterprise instead of encouraging civic, civil, and legal integrity. The U.S. Preamble proposes 5 public disciplines---in my view, integrity, justice, peace, strength, and prosperity---in order to encourage responsible human independence to living citizens. Past political regimes erroneously/falsely described the U.S. Preamble as “secular”: the preamble, by excluding religion/spirituality from the 5 public disciplines assigns them to individual-citizen privacy. Civic, civil, and legal religious-businesses may thrive because believers want the services rather than by imposing on fellow citizens who do not believe in the services.

The First Congress imposed the tyranny of Chapter XI Machiavellianism, in other words church-state partnership when it hired Congressional chaplains at citizens’ expense in 1789 and with ratification of the First Amendment in 1791. Congresses, administrations, and the Supreme Court have increased the tyranny since then. See Greece v Galloway (2014), which calls my objections niggling.

Government officials at all levels who do not practice and encourage the civic, civil, and legal proposition that is abstractly offered in the U.S. Preamble are aliens to We the People of the United States. Citizens who ignore the tyranny invite the loss of their opportunity for responsible human independence or civic, civil, and legal integrity.

Columns

Aliens to the entity/society We the People of the United States? (David J. Mitchell and Andrea Gallo and Terry Robinson) (. . . and https://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/entertainment_life/terry_robinson/article_18b012c0-997a-11ea-92bb-c3a08a22dacb.html)

Only yesterday, I published on my blog, cipbr@blogspot.com, “The Advocate may [could discover reason to] publish its interpretation of the U.S. Constitution’s preamble.” The Advocate writers’ coverage of the U.S.-alien ministers who insist on imposing whatever-God-is as civic, civil, and legal public discipline is itself wayward to the nation; the reporting is divergent to We the People of the United States.

Citizens may consider this nation’s statement of civic, civil, and legal trust and commitment: the preamble to the U.S. Constitution. Past generations, continuously influenced by erroneous Congress and other faulty leadership, granted our generation the opportunity/privilege to interpret the preamble in individual self-interest in order to secure a collective better future.

Individual ownership of civic integrity would aid accumulation of a supermajority of citizens who are practicing RESPONSIBLE HUMAN INDEPENDENCE more than freedom and liberty---words of alien war. We the People of the United States prefer public discipline for private happiness to fellow citizens; mutual, comprehensive safety and security for serenely confident living: private, spiritual pursuits flourishing within human, statutory justice.

On first consideration, notice that the preamble’s subject is circular to its subordinate object: “ourselves and our Posterity.” Our generation is both “our Posterity” to the signing-ratifying generation of 1787-1788 and “ourselves” to 2020’s coming generation. This point was articulated in a letter of September 6, 1789; http://www.let.rug.nl/usa/presidents/thomas-jefferson/letters-of-thomas-jefferson/jefl81.php: “. . . I suppose to be self evident, ‘that the earth belongs in usufruct to the living;’ that the dead have neither powers nor rights over it.” The letter is secondary to the fact that the 5-person Committee of Style. Its chair wrote the preamble’s abstract sentence that invites each individual’s interpretation so as to order his or her civic, civil, and legal life while pursuing private spirituality/religion.

The Advocate writers David J. Mitchell and Andrea Gallo quote Rev. Tony Spell saying that his church member who does not contribute at least 10 percent is “a thief.” Writer Terry Robinson tolerates The Advocate’s domestically divisive caption “. . . 'lock and load' for spiritual warfare” to speak for several local pastors and quote scripture. Writers never quote John 15:18-23 or Luke 14:26 or other domestic-hate passages, for example Genesis 22:2, which for me excludes the Bible as witness to whatever-God-is. Any phantom that would address me with such ideas cannot influence me.

How much more is a U.S. citizen, especially a writer for the press, cheating when he or she lives here but does not aid responsible human independence or their better interpretation of the preamble’s proposition?

I assert that it is The Advocate’s duty to consider the preamble and train their writers to continuously encourage the entity/society We the People of the United States according to the writer’s interpretation of the preamble.

Quora

https://www.quora.com/If-I-do-not-become-a-beneficial-person-for-society-then-does-this-mean-that-there-is-no-value-to-my-life-and-that-I-am-just-a-number?

I only know my opinion and do not know the-literal-truth let alone the-objective-truth.

What I think to start is that the human infant takes about 3 decades to acquire the comprehension and intention to live a complete human life. He or she takes another 3 decades to accumulate enough experience and observations to accept human individuality.

The human being has the individual power, the individual energy, and the individual authority (HIPEA) to choose between integrity to the-literal-truth, unknown as it may be, and infidelity. After another decade the self-interest to develop integrity may activate, and the lifetime begins to seem well lived. The mature adult is quick to say, “I don’t know” when that is so.

When a baby begins to talk, a frequent utterance is “What’s that?” It’s the baby’s equivalent to, “I don’t know.” The reliable parent answers and thereby the baby learns. Unfortunately, sometimes, the parent suffers reluctance to answer, especially, “I don’t know.” Then, the baby’s learning is diverted.

Every ovum a fertile woman produces is unique. It may be inseminated by a unique spermatozoon to become a unique, single-celled embryo. None of the subsequent events on the way to a young adult reduce the individuality of the person.

If encouraged and coached to do so, the infant accepts being human, having HIPEA, preferring integrity, and developing the self-discipline of integrity. However, he or she is born into a conflicted world wherein most cultures inculcate a quest for higher power. Few accept that physics and its progeny---including mathematics, chemistry, biology, psychology, and imagination---may be the human being’s only constraining power other than human oppression (coercion and force).

However, many individuals accept and practice all the above principles or better by their experiences, observations, and choices. Their unique perfection may come at the last moment. Such people have fulfilled their role as a human being---the most powerful living species.

The perfection each achieved was as unique as his or her person, and humankind is well pleased. Yet, if asked to judge, others would have to say, “I don’t know.”

https://www.quora.com/If-the-average-citizen-is-guaranteed-equal-opportunity-in-the-polling-place-he-must-have-equal-opportunity-in-the-market-place-What-did-Pres-Roosevelt-mean-by-this-Do-you-think-that-the-New-Deal-provided-Americans

After January 6, 1941, FDR had no peace-time credibility, and I will not waste my time speculating about his statements.
On that date, he said America was at war for “the freedom of speech, the freedom of worship, the freedom from want, and the freedom from fear.” See FDR and the Four Freedoms Speech - FDR Presidential Library & Museum.
All four freedoms pale before the human opportunity to develop integrity to the-literal-truth. Not only FDR, but the First Congress erred when they unconstitutionally codified freedom of worship’s kin, “freedom of religion.” The First Amendment needs amendment so as to encourage citizens to develop integrity rather than to civilly and legally support business institutions that promote religions. No government should encourage neglect of whatever-God-is.
But I think FDRs most egregious error is “the freedom from want.” Without want of integrity, self-discipline has less incentive if any. Second is “the freedom from fear,” without which people might not evacuate the path of a Category 5 hurricane.

 https://www.quora.com/What-is-an-idea-or-design-that-you-have-and-that-you-would-like-to-share-so-that-it-can-be-implemented-to-improve-some-aspect-of-society?

I appreciate your question, Mr. Alfonso, and would like to know your response to it. Not to delay, I will answer your question:  Yes, there is a proposal I want to share.

Observing its subordinate subject, “ourselves and our Posterity,” I hope every living citizen will consider the preamble to the U.S. Constitution, which is an abstract sentence. After due consideration, create a personal interpretation by which to guide civic, civil, and legal living, reserving religion/spirituality for private practice.

The civic citizen can develop a personal God that provides him or her personal hope and comfort in a conflicted world AND aid an achievable better future by reserving sufficient humility toward whatever-God-is. I assert that that is the salient point of the U.S. Preamble.

Accepting that I am of the year 2020 “ourselves” to the coming generations of citizens, I nourish an existing interpretation of the U.S. Preamble and share it in hopes of receiving criticism that inspires me to change my civic, civil, and legal living. Today, my interpretation is:  We the People of the United States maintain 5 public disciplines---integrity, justice, peace, strength, and prosperity---in order to encourage responsible human independence to living citizens.

I share this promotion of the U.S. Preamble’s proposition with the hope that in a few months I will begin to see evidence that fellow citizens are working on it and writing about it on all media. I hope interest will accelerate so that in a matter of months political polls show significant interest, and in a couple years most citizens are participating in the 5 disciplines of by and for the people.

Please comment, Mr. Alfonso, 2) if you like this idea and 2) perhaps share the U.S. Preamble’s proposition as you interpret it.

https://www.quora.com/Are-political-views-opinions-allowed-to-contain-false-statements-and-still-be-considered-justifiable?

Maybe so. There’s hubris in being able to say, “I never lied.” But managing liars may require extreme humility. President Trump likes to say, “We’ll see how it turns out.”

I agree with you, Mr. Martin, if you think this is a puzzle for voters and other concerned fellow citizens. I haven’t drawn many conclusions. Let me start with a quote: Don’t give to dogs what is holy, and don’t throw your pearls to the pigs. If you do, they may trample them under their feet, then turn and attack you; Matthew 7-6, CJB. I consider this a suggestion for protecting vital information in the presence of liars. It seems clear that whatever-God-is leaves it to men to deal with liars, and diplomats are unlikely to negotiate with the statement, “You are a liar.” How does the President of the United States manage liars? (If you are in a hurry, please skip to the last two paragraphs.)

For your question, consider that this advice is directed to the U.S. civic society: We the People of the United States. That is, fellow citizens who aid the civic, civil, legal, and private disciplines that seem proposed in the preamble to the U.S. Constitution (the U.S. Preamble and its articles). Dissidents to the U.S. Preamble’s proposition are like renters---borrowing the work of civic citizens. Further, to my comment, Twitter is like dogs, pigs, and donkeys more than elephants, perhaps excepting mormon-saint-elephants.

We can see that despite humankind’s individual, noble motives there remain in this world persons who practice diverse evils. Lying can produce severe consequences. For example, were it not for the majority of the U.S. Senate’s GOP majority, Nancy Pelosi and Adam Schiff would have unconstitutionally removed President Donald Trump, advancing Pelosi a step closer to the Presidency. Swearing to uphold the U.S. Preamble’s articles yet harboring alien-allegiance invites misery and loss to all U.S. citizens. Lying makes defending the U.S. Preamble’s proposition interesting and challenging yet expensive.

Perhaps Pelosi’s strategy came from some-journalism-schools’ theory: Political “science” falsehoods can be press-promoted as statistically designed “public” opinion. A politically designed poll of perhaps 10 thousand strategically chosen citizens will influence some of perhaps 155 million registered voters. In other words, public policy is set by public opinion, and statistics, a study tool, can be manipulated so as to direct public policy. Similarly, press mendacity about Pelosi’s false impeachment of President Trump would sway public opinion against Trump. However, Pelosi grossly ignored the rule of law and the predictability of Schiff-failure.

I doubt many politicians own a personal interpretation of the U.S. Preamble’s abstract proposition for 2020 living. I share mine for constructive criticism by fellow citizens including government officials: We the People of the United States practice and promote 5 public disciplines---integrity, justice, peace, strength, and prosperity---so as to encourage responsible human independence to living citizens. Its civic, civil, and legal disciplines tacitly consign religion/spirituality to personal privacy. Independence empowers the civic citizen to walk away when the mob takes the license to harm property and people for the sake of “liberty” as their faction sees it. The society of civic citizens encourages dissident citizens by example and the benefits of constraint under the disciplines.

Civic citizens may conduct open-minded discussion of the 5 disciplines for responsible human independence or better. However, dissidents, for their reasons, may oppose the discussions. People who never thought past “we, the people,” a propaganda, may be mostly harmless. However, people who oppose statutory justice may employ mendacity such as designed-political-science-press-promoted-polls to attempt political advantage.

The President of the United States is obligated to We the People of the United States, no matter how small their faction may be, to uphold the law during his or her term. President Trump has shown canny practices in managing mendacity intended to constrain him. I think part of his skill is alacrity on countering lies presented by Democrats and the biased press. When someone reports that he lied, I doubt and don’t convict President Trump on his opponent’s opinions. Trump’s speed at countering lies against him is one of his political skills, and I give him the benefit of the doubt. How he handles Matthew 7:6 requires humility, and I am glad he does not jeopardize the people.

Facebook is there. It would not bother me if Twitter went bankrupt.

https://www.quora.com/What-is-wrong-with-our-society-in-todays-world?

Assuming that you are referring to civic citizens as “our society,” no culture has yet accepted two essential proposals: discipline of by and for the people under responsible human independence to living citizens and discovery of justice according to ineluctable evidence.

These two principles may be approached through a nest of acceptances, including the following or better equivalents:

An infant may accept being a human being.

The child may accept that it takes about a quarter century to acquire the self-interest to live a complete human life.

The young adult may accept that comprehension and intent are required to choose and develop integrity rather than to tolerate or nourish infidelity.

The adult may accept that integrity and hope is in his or her best-self-interest;

That reserving sufficient appreciation and humility for whatever-God-is is prudent

That fellow citizens with differing religious/spiritual beliefs may also be humble to actual-reality.

That each human is unique and therefore cannot be equal.

That most citizens accept voluntary, civic order under equity with statutory justice. Those who for their reasons do not contribute to justice may be constrained according to written-law-enforcement as it exists.

That accepting current obligations to descendants and legal immigrants in the coming generation is essential to the current generation.

In the U.S., these principles may be developed from the abstract U.S. Preamble’s proposition relating to a 1787 vision: developing civic integrity as a nation. Every citizen who engages the U.S. Preamble may develop his or her interpretation for current living, accepting that in the phrase “ourselves and our Posterity,” the coming generation views us as “ourselves.” This principle has been obfuscated since 1787, when the 5-persons Committee of Style authored it, I think to reflect the controversial consequence of the 1787 Constitutional convention in Philadelphia.

With 2/3 of fellow citizens developing the practice of the U.S. Preamble’s proposition (or better), as they interpret it for their responsible independence, and applying the-objective-truth to develop statutory justice, an achievable, better world may unfold.

The global-society that follows these principles is not necessarily in the U.S., but I am dedicated to us as we each interpret responsible human happiness with civic integrity.

https://www.quora.com/Is-valid-knowledge-certitude-or-truth-found-only-in-a-posteriori-knowledge?

I think so.

I appreciate your phrases and words: valid knowledge or certitude as truth. “Truth” isn’t easy, as witnessed by 1679 documents found at https://plato.stanford.edu/search/searcher.py?query=truth. I think a posteriori means “derived by reasoning from observed facts,” from Merriam-Webster online. I prefer the phrase “ineluctable evidence.”

I found even “truth” problematic when after my 2006 speech, “Faith in the Truth.” While the article “the” seems to clarify that I refer to actual reality, a notable fellow citizen asked, “Phil, were you speaking absolute, ultimate, God’s, or Phil’s truth?” I answered “The Truth” without communicating.

Today, I write that humankind works to discover the-objective-truth based on ineluctable evidence. Humans invent new instruments for perception and continually improve the-objective-truth in order to ultimately approach the-literal-truth. The laws of physics extend through chemistry, math, biology, and psychology to determine integrity, from which ethics is derived.

Of course, these are a few of my thoughts. I do not know the-literal-truth.

https://www.quora.com/If-you-have-to-choose-between-left-and-right-for-political-thinking-which-one-should-you-choose?

Your question’s constraints are, in my view, unacceptable for a civic culture. I will answer with my choice for political thinking: responsible human independence.

Responsible humans personally accept the constraints of physics and its progeny, including mathematics, chemistry, biology, psychology, and imagination. If they develop religion/spirituality to provide hope and comfort with actually-real uncertainty, they do so in private with a reserve of humility toward whatever-God-is or what may control the unfolding of events. Thereby, they may appreciate and encourage responsible fellow citizens as well as dissidents, as they are and where they are in their quests for integrity.

Public disciplines are required to encourage and coach people who accept that they are human and may develop responsible independence. I view the preamble to the U.S. Constitution as a proposal under the constraints of physics for responsible human independence to living citizens. The cited public disciplines are, in my view for 2020’s “ourselves” and the coming generation, integrity, justice, peace, strength, and prosperity.

The English, American, and French revolutions of 1689, 1774, and 1789, respectively, illustrate that liberty is too often taken as license to kill fellow citizens. When the crowd feels licensed for liberty, I want the independence to walk away so as not to tolerate harm to domestic property and fellow citizens or visitors.

A conservative human being neither initiates nor tolerates harm to or from fellow citizens or their associations and reserves enough humility to discover whatever-God-is.

Readers who think my claims are overbearing or condescending may accept that I am writing my opinion with the public assertion that I do not know the-literal-truth.

https://www.quora.com/What-should-politicians-do-to-make-your-country-a-better-place?

After over 2 decades of study, I own a personal interpretation of the abstract preamble to the U.S. Constitution. Politicians and government officials may earn and practice their personal interpretations of the U.S. Preamble and solicit public approval based on performance.

An identity politic from the 1774 colonial British-American revolution for independence from England, resulted in 13 globally free and independent states. The new global status of each of the 13 states was accepted by the 1784 ratification of the 1783 Treaty of Paris. However, after nearly four years of effort, it became evident that the confederation would not succeed. The 1777 Articles of Confederation were too weak for domestic integrity let alone global power.

The 1787 Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, with representatives from only 12 states, one taking a rebel position, used closed-door debates to protect identity politics in order to explore the world’s political systems in the search for civic integrity. The subject of the first draft of the preamble was the named, 13 states; https://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/document/the-committee-of-detail-report/. It included no proposition. The proposition for discipline of by and for the people was written by the Committee of Style and issued as the abstract preamble to the U.S. Constitution on September 12, 1787. Sixteen delegates refused to sign it, leaving 39 signers of 55 framers.

With its discipline of by and for citizens, the preamble terminated the colonial English-American obsession with self-governance. But the dominant identity politics restored Anglo-American tradition when the First Congress unconstitutionally hired chaplains at the people’s expense. Congress wanted to be competitive with Parliament, which has constitutionally specified seats for officials of the Church of England. The goals and purpose specified in the U.S. Preamble, by not including religion or spirituality as civic, civil, or legal disciplines effect their consignment to privacy.

Every U.S. citizen may own a personal interpretation of the U.S. Preamble’s proposition, and government officials at all levels should practice their personal interpretation. With at least 2/3 of citizens actively developing integrity by practicing the proposition, the U.S. would begin to perceive a better future. Neglect by politicians is egregious.

https://www.quora.com/How-can-I-bring-a-positive-change-in-society?

Minimally, earn the way of living you want plus save and invest for retirement.

To be at the leading edge, learn Maslow’s hierarchy of needs in its latest form. Convert it to a hierarchy of responsibility and use it to order your life.

https://www.quora.com/Why-is-it-that-there-is-always-some-sort-of-divide-between-humans-instead-of-us-being-united?

I think it’s because of three evolutionary developments---a macro development involving millions of years and diverse cultures civilizing at different rates, an intermediate collaboration by the 3 to 5 living generations, and the micro developments by the living individuals.

The living generations evolved over at least 3 million years; but most civic practices are no more than 0.080 million years old. In other words, most inhabitants are relatively advanced.

This evolution involves some 8 trillion human-years of experiences and observations from inventing tools for substance on the land to planning to colonize another planet. The currently living peoples span aboriginal cultures nearly unchanged after 80,000 years to the leading edge, for example, humans who are exploring space.

The individuals within the various cultures are each at some point on his or her path toward achieving his or her unique level of integrity to the-literal-truth if not succumbing to infidelity. In other words, at the same time, some citizens of the world invite death while others foster life.

If this was interesting, I write elsewhere about nested acceptances, and essays can be found with Google Chrome and the searches “"Phil Beaver"+"civic people"+"nested acceptances." Results can be increased by successive omissions of the first 2 phrases or by changing the third to “nest of acceptances.” The first is accepting that you are a human being, the most powerful of the known species.

https://www.quora.com/unanswered/Is-freedom-acquired?

I consider freedom an external provision: an individual cannot acquire it. Humankind is limited. The limit is physics and its progeny, such as mathematics, chemistry, psychology, plus fiction, civics, law, and so on.

People often write about freedom and liberty in the same essay. Often, I cannot discern their reasoning, because they don’t define those special terms. For example, https://lawliberty.org/time-to-disobey-religious-liberty/. Consequently, I write freedom-from and liberty-to and express an American dream I envision.

Merriam-Webster online (MW) might help. “Freedom” means “the absence of necessity, coercion, or constraint in choice or action.” “Liberty” is diversely applied, starting with 3 major distinctions: being free, perceiving privilege, and risk-taking. Within “being free” there’s as you please, sans physics, without despots, human privilege, and “the power of choice.” I leave MW with the notion that freedom is not attainable due to the limits imposed by physics or the necessity to benefit from physics, and liberty is the choice within the constraints of physic. Constrained by physics, freedom implies absence of coercion or arbitrary force.

Now enters an associated term, “independence.” MW informs us “dependent” means determined, conditioned, or supported by another or by drugs, and MW follows with “independent.”

These considerations lead me to a better statement of an American dream: a culture wherein citizens develop responsible human independence as freedom-from oppression and the liberty-to develop integrity according to physics rather than tolerate infidelity.

I celebrate Davis Prather’s stimulating question and assert that my response is spontaneous and sincere; I would appreciate criticism. Readers who would like to consider my previous uses of terms herein may search on Google Chrome using, for example, "Phil Beaver"+"civic people"+"tolerate infidelity" for 3 results. In this particular case, the search is enhanced by omitting “civic people.” Omitting “Phil Beaver” gives results about spousal infidelity more than infidelity to physics and it progeny, especially psychology.

https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-most-unfair-thing-that-exists-but-could-be-changed-if-we-all-wanted-to?

Many if not most parents don’t treat children as unique persons and, second, humankind does not encourage appreciation and dignity of the human ovum.

https://www.quora.com/Why-is-political-correctness-seen-as-more-of-a-tendency-of-the-left?

Hypocrisy?

I recall in the 1950s the mantra was “the Christian thing to do.”

Maybe 10,000 years ago, parents took great pride if a son or daughter was so excellent as to be chosen for human sacrifice.

I think (and have the evidence) that the Civil War was fought because white, Christian abolitionists were consider evil.

I do not favor modern political correctness, but think it is not new.

https://www.quora.com/What-do-you-think-of-Great-leadership-isnt-about-control-Its-about-empowering-people?

I like the idea and wonder how to apply it.

I have not experienced much empowerment from exhortation, coercion, or force. I especially oppose governance---local, state, and national.

I try to promote trust-in and commitment-to the preamble to the U.S. Constitution but can’t tell much support for accepting its civic, civil, and legal powers.

https://www.quora.com/How-did-we-lose-sight-of-our-shared-interest-in-the-success-of-our-country-When-did-everything-get-so-far-from-the-world-our-grandparents-lived-in-Do-you-think-we-can-get-back-to-that-era-of-prosperity?

I think we are now collaborating for an achievable better future and am encouraged by your informative questions.

First, I think after the preamble to the U.S. Constitution was written on September 8-12 by 5 delegates and signed on September 17 by 39 delegates, the 16 dissident delegates used factional American Protestantism to reinstate the church-state tradition they were accustomed to as British-American colonists. Just as the Declaration of Independence reference to “Nature’s God” was war propaganda against England’s reformed-Catholic God, Congress hired chaplains so as to claim “divinity” on par with Parliament and its constitutional-seats for members of the Church of England. The consequence has been repression of the U.S. Preamble’s proposition as “secular” whereas it is neutral to religion, assigning it to privacy rather than a civic discipline.

Past generations, influenced by Congress and other errant officials, have neglected the civic, civil, and legal powers of the U.S. Preamble. It is an abstract sentence, and every citizens should own his or her interpretation and share it with others so as to discover mutual improvements. Mine today is:  We the People of the United States develop 5 public disciplines---integrity, justice, peace, strength, and prosperity---in order to encourage responsible human independence to living citizens.

As individual citizens develop their own interpretation of the U.S. Preamble so as to order their civic life and their private life, a supermajority of civic citizens will emerge, and We the People of the United States will be established after neglect since September 17, 1787.

If you like this idea, help make it happen by sharing the present message so as to develop a better one.

https://www.quora.com/When-you-are-not-doing-what-you-have-to-do-at-work-and-in-your-everyday-life-what-do-you-like-to-do?

I like to read/listen then write my response; speak then LISTEN and re-iterate with better mutual comprehension.

My special interest is comprehending the proposition that is offered in the preamble to the U.S. Constitution, and choosing how I want to order my civic life so as to accommodate my inspiration and motivation. Collaborating with fellow citizens helps me discover the happiness I prefer within civic integrity.

I am able to read, write, speak, and listen using 4 blogs, primarily 2, substantially 1: cipbr.blogspot.com, and more slowly promotethepreamble.blogspot.com. Also, I write on some public forums such as this one. I speak in public and at 2 annual library meetings, celebrating each June 21, commemorating 1788s’ ratification of the 1787 draft U.S. Constitution and September 17, commemorating the 1787 signing, leaving 16 delegates dissident to the consequence of the Philadelphia convention. This year, the 7^th annual June 21 celebration is titled “Responsible Human Independence Day,” for the first time. We discovered that “liberty” is too often taken as civic, civil, or legal license.

I rely on Google Chrome searches to empower interested readers to find my essays. For example, a reader can search "Phil Beaver"+"civic people"+"civic integrity" and find my essays on several forums. Changing the third selector to “Responsible Human Independence” yields other essays.

Law professors

https://lawliberty.org/forum/socialism-and-the-exhaustion-of-american-liberalism/

To Nancy:

The 1784 ratification of the Treaty of Paris reads “this fourteenth day of January, in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty-four, and in the eighth year of the sovereignty and independence of the United States of America.”

The 1776 Declaration of Independence grounds its claims on “the laws of nature and of nature's God” and closes “with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence” and a mutual pledge of lives, fortunes, and honor.

It seems to me the Americans did all they could to avoid Christian doctrine, Catholic doctrine in particular.

More importantly, the 1774 confederation of 13 former British colonies, self-styled states, with confirmation of the states by name in the 1784 ratification, did not hold together. Nine states replaced the confederation of 12 (1 of the 13 was not present on September 17, 1787) with a union of the 9 on June 21, 1788, agreeing that the first Congress would amend the U.S. Preamble’s 1787 Articles. Two states joined the globally established nation, and operations began on March 4, 1789. The negotiated U.S. Constitution was ratified on December 15, 1791 by representatives of the required 10 of 14 states.

The U.S. Preamble proposes 5 public disciplines so as to encourage responsible human independence. Since religion/spirituality is excluded, practice is a private decision rather than a civic, civil, or legal collaboration of by and for fellow citizens.

Getting from “nature’s God” to the Trinity seems at best an exercise in futility and at worst an attempt to impose Catholicism, reformed or not, on civic citizens.

https://lawliberty.org/book-review/engaging-the-catholic-imagination/

To Nancy:

ON MAY 28, 2020 AT 13:15:45 PM

It seems to me any theist is prudent to reserve sufficient humility and appreciation toward whatever-God-is.

It seems to me Agathon (d. 400 BC) describes Jesus in Plato's "Symposium." We do not know that Jesus of "I am" did not talk to Agathon.

What if Jesus presented the Agathon "I am" in 2020. Would the Church be humbled to whatever-God-is?

https://lawliberty.org/overcoming-the-dilemma-of-religious-liberty/

Karen Taliaferro generously shares her vast knowledge as a few specific definitions: religious liberty, liberalism, natural law, “tethering” human [statutory justice] to divine law.

I would put her book on my reading list if I wanted another 5 decades to consider adopting a doctrine. In my 8^th decade of living and 6^th of marriage with 3 children, I do not want liberty/license to oppose the constraints of physics and its progeny, such as mathematics, chemistry, biology, psychology, imagination, and everything. I think physics requires responsible human independence. In my view, that voluntary proposition is implied in the preamble to the U.S. Constitution.

I share only my opinion and the consequential power, energy, and authority of my person to pursue the happiness I perceive rather than the constraints someone would impose. I do not write the-literal-truth and want readers to accept my viewpoint for me: it is alright for me to pursue responsible human independence even though I do not know the-objective-truths by which humankind may approach the-literal-truth.

The “problem with religious liberty” is the hubris to impose civic, civil, or legal religion as statutory justice. Religion is restricted to the individual person’s private pursuits, based on heartfelt concerns only the individual may develop or submit-to. The human being has this characteristic, and fellow citizens may take advantage of mutual integrity, justice, peace, strength, and prosperity---5 public disciplines.

The person who trusts-in and commits-to a theological doctrine self-enslaves to bemusing-hubris fellow citizens do not appreciate and the potential for conflict with whatever-God-is. Frequently, on hearing that I trust-in and commit-to the-literal-truth unknown as it may be opines that my soul doomed. I ask, “Are you certain?” I learned this provocative civic-defense from my friend, Hector.

I speculate that “God” is the source of physics and its progeny, and could be something as basic as potential-energy and its cosmic, incompletely-reversible conversion to kinetic energy and mass.

However, I reserve the humility to accept Jesus or the Trinity or the Universal Soul if the mystery of soul is resolved to me. I do not want anyone to follow my principles, but would like criticism by which I my improve my civic integrity yet maintain my quest for happiness.

I agree with Grosby’s tacit indictment of liberalism as a doctrine of un-constraint. Mankind ultimately conforms to physics and it progeny. Try reason or revelation as the authority to control a Category 5 Hurricane. Without the means, you can’t reach the end.

The fellow citizen who says my afterdeath is doomed fails to consider why I painfully acquire the humility I need.

I do not wish to alienate Taliaferro, Grosby, or fellow readers. I hope my ideas, gained from decades studying the U.S. Preamble’s proposition, will inspire fellow citizens to engage its abstract 5 disciplines needed to encourage responsible human independence to living citizens and reserving religious pursuits for personal privacy.

https://lawliberty.org/time-to-disobey-religious-liberty/

This fellow-citizen trusts-in and commits-to whatever-God-is rather than any human construct. I hope the Supreme Court will examine the religion clauses of the First Amendment and judge them unconstitutional based on the civic, civil, and legal power of the preamble to the U.S. Constitution.

The authors, the 5-person Committee of Style, chaired by Governeur Morris, wrote a 5-discipline, 1-purpose proposal that living citizens may either interpret or neglect. I work to encourage citizens to own their interpretation, which may become one of their prized possessions, especially respecting their posterity.

My interpretation today is:  We the People of the United States develop 5 public disciplines---integrity, justice, peace, strength, and prosperity---in order to encourage responsible human independence to living citizens. I share it for comments that might improve my civic life. I hold my person’s motivation and inspiration private yet voluntarily shareable and likewise appreciate other citizens’ legal privacy.

Consistent with these principles, the First Amendment should be reformed to encourage civic integrity rather than spiritual/religious mystery and division. It matters not which branch of government effects the reform, but the text holds Congress accountable.

On 5/25/20 I added a paragraph and posted on https://www.facebook.com/lawandliberty1.

Readers may find more with Google Chrome search on the interesting phrase, for example, "integrity, justice, peace, strength, and prosperity." Searches can be narrowed with +"Phil Beaver" and, further, by adding "civic people."

https://lawliberty.org/book-review/boys-sex-and-the-path-to-manhood/

Rachal Lu’s essay, like Peggy Orenstein’s book addresses evidence of a problem without suggesting an achievable, new, perhaps promising rearing-approach. “There may be some [revanchist] truth.” However, reform has to boldly consider the-objective-truth, which, on continually improved perspective might eventually approach the-literal-truth.

Constrained by physics and its progeny---mathematics, chemistry, biology, psychology, and imagination, for examples, mankind labors to take advantage of discovery, based on ineluctable evidence rather than rational constructs. I think an ascension toward acceptance-of and fidelity-to the-literal-truth is underway.

Human life begins with the ovum and the spermatozoon, each of which is due the dignity and appreciation for itself on par with the body, mind, and person who is carrying it. In integrity, the female intends physical and psychotically healthy ova and the male cares for his spermatozoa.

Each ovum and each spermatozoon is unique (as far as I know) and neither conception nor gestation, nor delivery, nor rearing, nor the person’s acquisition of comprehension and intention to live a complete human life reduces his or her individuality.

Through the spouses, the conception has four family lines, and the four may evince exponential diversity in genes and memes as ancestry is traced back.

If a new generation comes every 19 years, the infant, at the leading edge of evolution, may develop integrity for a way of living the parents cannot imagine---the infant may develop, say by age 76,  wisdom to coach a 3rd generation of adolescents and young adults and encourage the 4th generation of infants.

Aware parents encourage and coach their children in nested acceptances:  being human; having individual power, energy, and authority to choose integrity rather than tolerated infidelity; using sufficient discipline to develop responsible human independence; comprehending the constraints of physics so as to advance the edge of human constraints without inviting misery and loss. I might add: humility toward whatever-God-is as a reserve for self-interest, no matter what hopes and comforts a person may develop.

Under these principles, which can be encouraged and coached, but can only be acquired by experience and observation, the authentic woman attends her ova and the autonomous man protects both the woman and her viable ova. The person who chooses an alternate lifestyle accepts physics’ constraints so as to lessen human woe.

Articulating these principles in my words emerged from reading, writing, speaking, and LISTENING in order to promote widespread personal interpretation and practice of the U.S. Preamble: proposition the authors abstractly created in the preamble to the U.S. Constitution. Readers who want to consider more ideas may find them with Google Chrome using, for example, “Phil Beaver”+”civic people”+”nest of acceptances.” Omitting “civic people” gains more results. “Nested acceptances” also works, especially after today.

Posted at https://www.facebook.com/lawandliberty1/posts/3271918489485932.

https://lawliberty.org/book-review/genetics-and-human-difference/

Speaking of “liberty,” the 1789 French usage was license to kill fellow citizens. I prefer responsible human independence, especially to understand the, so far, neglected American hope.

It’s never too late to consider the Greek journal (Heraclitus, d. 475 BC) of a phrase like the one on the U.S. Great Seal: Out of many one. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E_pluribus_unum. It was U.S.-officially used in 1776 and may have represented the confederation of the 13 eastern seaboard, British colonies, self-styled “states” for global discussion.

Today, E_pluribus_unum may represent the purpose of the entity/society We the People of the United States. It is the subject of the abstract political sentence that proposes the U.S. public disciplines: the preamble to the U.S. Constitution. The sentence is so contentious that most humans do not accept it. However, every human being who can owes it to his or her person to do the work to own a personal interpretation by which civic, civil, and legal living may be ordered, leaving private happiness to privacy.

I share my interpretation so as to learn from fellow citizens who are kind enough to share criticism. It is, “We the people of the United States develop 5 public disciplines---integrity, justice, peace, strength, and prosperity---in order to encourage responsible human independence to living citizens.” Civic discipline is a far cry from Lockean “self-governance” or Lincoln's governance of by and for the people.

In short, the preamble’s society pursues as standard the integrity to be developed by posterity’s posterity. How I rationalize the importance of the U.S. Preamble is developed on my blog, promotethepreamble.blogspot.com, best read from the last post to the first, or wherever the reader loses interest in chronological unraveling of such complexity.

I’d like to read Dalrymple’s interpretation of the U.S. Preamble’s abstract proposition.

“Your comment have been automatically approved and posted.” Posted at https://www.facebook.com/lawandliberty1/posts/3284803551530759.

https://lawliberty.org/book-review/engaging-the-catholic-imagination/

It seems to me any theist is prudent to reserve sufficient humility and appreciation toward whatever-God-is.

It seems to me Agathon (d. 400 BC) describes Jesus in Plato's "Symposium." We do not know that Jesus of "I am" did not talk to Agathon.

What if Jesus presented the Agathon "I am" in 2020. Would the Church be humbled to whatever-God-is?

“Your comment have been automatically approved and posted.” Posted at https://www.facebook.com/lawandliberty1/posts/3284803551530759.

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.

The Advocate may someday interpret the U.S. Constitution’s preamble

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 fellow citizens and future citizens to take advantage of responsible human independence.” I want to improve my interpretation by listening to other citizens and their interpretations yet would preserve the original, 1787, text, unless it is amended by the people.

It seems the Supreme Court occasionally refers to it, and 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 Advocate may publish its interpretation of the U.S. Constitution’s preamble.

The preamble to the U.S. Constitution is an abstract political proposal of civic, civil, and legal integrity. It has three key features: 1) citizens consider or neglect it by individual choice; 2) it proposes human discipline without standards; 3) religion/spirituality is tacitly a private concern; and 4) living citizens encourage mutual responsibility whereby posterity’s posterity may approach the-literal-truth.

I know neither the authors’ intentions in writing the preamble in 1787, the signers’ reasons for approving it, the nine states’ representatives’ intentions in ratifying it in 1788, nor the identity politics of the elected officials of eleven states who repressed the preamble’s proposition in 1789.

I only know that their abstract sentence, the most powerful political sentence ever written, invites me to own a personal interpretation, which I consider among my most precious possessions.

I pity The Advocate for daily expressing that they have no idea what it means to be of We the People of the United States as defined by the preamble.

Columns

Hypocrisy (The Advocate) (https://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/opinion/our_views/article_2b2f45c6-99e6-11ea-b482-7b3f2bee8adc.html)

I think there’s also a Matthew 7:5 beam at The Advocate.

I maintain my full subscription to The Advocate partially to support their information law-suits. Also, I like them listing the members of the Louisiana Supreme Court.

The Advocate falls short in their proposal for transparency: the editors don’t sign “Our Views,” obscuring personal favor toward social democracy to undo the representative republic.

I’m focusing on the sentence, “The Supreme Court claims it should be allowed to make its own rules as an independent branch of government.” The Advocate sues for information We the People of the United States who live Louisiana need. If the Louisiana Supreme Court is not behaving to fulfill the civic, civil, and legal proposition that is stated in the preamble to the U.S. Constitution, reform is needed. Where?

Perhaps enforcement or amendment of the Louisiana Constitution is needed. I doubt amendment of the U.S. Constitution is needed for the courts and wonder what branch-independence is referenced in the above quote: is it Louisiana?

The argument I’d like to see is that the entity We the People of the United States as defined in the U.S. Preamble holds both state and national constitutions accountable. Elected and appointed government officials ought to do everything each can to evince voluntary membership in We the People of the United States, as the individual views the U.S. Preamble’s proposition. In other words, posterity’s posterity leads in setting the ultimate standards.

Of particular concern is “freedom of the press,” which, unlike branches of government seems absolute: the press can serve everything but the entity We the People of the United States, with immunity. I think the U.S. Constitution needs words in the First Amendment that limits the press to responsible human independence as described in the U.S. Preamble rather than granting press-writers immunity from responsibility. The media should be journaling We the People of the United States’ progress toward posterity’s ultimate integrity.

The first Congress’s second most egregious error: freedom of the press to shirk journalism (George Will) (https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/a-disturbing-draft-opinion-is-an-attempt-to-exclude-conservatives-from-the-legal-debate/2020/05/14/5234666a-960d-11ea-91d7-cf4423d47683_story.html)

I’m betting Will becomes a U.S. journalist, aiding members of the civic entity We the People of the United States to connect in order to accomplish the civic, civil, and legal disciplines and purpose Will may comprehend as proposed in the U.S. Preamble. In my view, it's responsible human independence.

In this proprietary column, Will does not offer phrase-explanations that might help We the People of the United States, civic citizens, make choices in individual self-interest. For example, “equality rather than liberty” may represent a dichotomy between social democracy and political license, both of which oppose representative republicanism. When the crowd takes license to harm fellow citizens for "liberty" I want responsible human independence.

Countering the left, human beings are unique and develop their persons individually and therefore ought not want equality let alone demand it. Countering the right, England maintains a constitutional church-state-partnership. The citizen who may be convinced he or she has a soul and that his or her person may enrich the soul’s eternal future may also nourish the self-interest of humility toward whatever-God-is so as to uncompromisingly appreciate fellow citizens and encourage development of written law-enforcement so as to approach statutory justice. It is never too late for a human being to comprehend, trust-in, and commit-to the U.S. Preamble’s proposition for the standards of civic, civil, and legal integrity that posterity’s posterity will discover. See https://www.history.com/news/10-things-you-may-not-know-about-the-oddest-founding-father.

Journaling/reporting We the People of the United States’ journey under U.S. Preamble’s proposition seems an essential service that can accelerate encouragement of civic integrity. Writers who do so accept the unstated limitations of the First Amendment: encouraging the eventual success of the U.S. Preamble’s We the People of the United States.

The above post was accepted at the above URL.

Original, long version:

I’m betting Will becomes a U.S. journalist, aiding members of the civic entity, We the People of the United States, to connect in order to accomplish the civic, civil, and legal disciplines and purpose Will comprehends is proposed in the U.S. Preamble; in my view, responsible human independence. See https://www.history.com/news/10-things-you-may-not-know-about-the-oddest-founding-father Item 6.

Throughout the generations since September 17, 1787 when the U.S. Preamble and its draft Articles, were signed by over 2/3 of the 55 delegates who represented 12 states that were formerly British-American colonies, citizens have depended on journalists to inform civic discovery of integrity.

Some of the 16 non-signers overlooked the 5 disciplines of by and for citizens, and some opposed theism’s omission from the 5 disciplines and the preamble’ purpose: in my view, individual human happiness with civic integrity. Consequently, unfortunately, ratifying the 1787 Constitution entailed the quid pro quo that amendment to a British-like bill of rights would be accomplished by the First Congress, 1789-1793. James Madison relied on the 1720-1723 pseudonym Cato papers, written by two Englishmen, to draft what became the First Amendment; see https://www.history.com/topics/united-states-constitution/freedom-of-the-press. Unfortunately, no one thought to authorize journalists rather than the press and limit journalism mimicking limitations on governments: local, state, and national branches: legislation (bicameral), administration, and judiciary. Thus, the U.S. Constitution, finalized on December 15, 1791, with the unfortunate political impact of Congress, features the lamentable “freedom of the press” rather than perhaps constitutionally limited authorization of journalism.

With journalism to aid development of individual discipline of by and for inhabitants so as to encourage responsible human independence to accepting, living citizens, Will might be promoting these acceptances or better to each citizen:

I accept that am a human being; it takes at least 3 decades for an infant to transition to accept young adult with the comprehension and intention to conduct a complete human life. While a person may acquire concern for a spiritual entity or soul and develop comforting theory of personal responsibility, accepting self-interest includes sufficient humility toward whatever-God-is. A civic citizen neither initiates nor tolerates harm to or from fellow citizens and their responsible societies, and accepts commitment and trust to develop human equity under statutory justice. Civic citizens actively encourage, by example, exhortation, and written law-enforcement, dissidents such as criminals, tyrants, and intentional dependents to reform to civic citizenship---responsible human independence or civic integrity.

In this proprietary column, Will does not offer phrase-explanations that might help We the People of the United States, civic citizens, make choices in individual self-interest.

For example, “equality rather than liberty” may represent a dichotomy between social democracy and political license, both of which oppose representative republicanism. Countering the left, human beings are unique and develop their persons individually and therefore ought not want equality let alone demand it. Countering the right, England maintains a constitutional church-state-partnership. The citizen who may be convinced he or she has a soul and that his or her person may enrich the soul’s eternal future may also nourish the self-interest of humility toward whatever-God-is so as to uncompromisingly appreciate fellow citizens and encourage development of written law-enforcement and approach statutory justice, a worthy human goal.

It is never too late for a human being to comprehend, trust-in, and commit-to the U.S. Preamble’s proposition for the standards of civic, civil, and legal integrity that posterity’s posterity will discover. Journaling We the People of the United States’ journey under U.S. Preamble’s proposition seems a treasured service that can accelerate the process. Writers who do so accept the unstated limitations of the First Amendment: encouraging the eventual success of the U.S. Preamble’s We the People of the United States.

Quora

https://www.quora.com/What-does-responsibility-mean-to-you-and-what-do-you-feel-most-responsible-for?

I couldn’t articulate it then, but as an infant I could say with integrity “I don’t know.” Now, I am focused on integrity and discernment when I don’t know.

As I began to learn, my responses expanded to awareness of facts, actual-reality, and opinion. No one coached or encouraged me to retain integrity by saying “I don’t know” when that was the-literal-truth. When I read Ralph Waldo Emerson’s “Self Reliance” (1841) was insufficient to terminate the Southern-Baptist indoctrination I acquired from my parents and community. When I fell in love with a particular Louisiana-French-Catholic woman, my wife of over 50 years, I soon observed that her serene confidence was hers more her community’s.

Through her and self-reliance, I have discovered a nest of acceptances that for me define human responsibility.

First, I am a human being and will continue to develop integrity until my mind, body, and person stop functioning. Integrity is doing the work to discover that a heartfelt concern is not a mirage, how to take advantage of the discovery, behaving in self-interest, sharing with fellow citizens the basis for my behavior in order to collaborate on opportunity to improve, and remaining open-minded toward new discovery that demands reform.

Second, it takes about 3 decades for a human infant to transition to a young adult with comprehension and intention to live a complete human life. Even though no culture encourages and coaches its youth to develop integrity, each human has the individual power, the individual energy, and the individual authority (HIPEA) to develop avoidance and rejection of infidelity. Humankind needs to develop these principles, and it will not do so until a super-majority of individuals accept HIPEA for developing integrity rather than tolerating infidelity.

Third, it seems self-evident that humans may develop equity under statutory justice. The recent focus on “equality” obfuscates the reality that each human being is unique: the unique cannot accept equality. Justice requires objective equity rather than subjective fairness.

Fourth, the preamble to the U.S. Constitution or better political statement is repressed by political regimes and only responsible citizens can accept the achievable better future its proposition offers. Each citizen is either responsible for his or her interpretation of the preamble or for the dependence he or she suffers. I think the preamble proposes 5 public disciplines to encourage responsible human independence.

I feel most responsible for accepting that I am a human being and continuously developing my person in integrity.

https://www.quora.com/I-am-convinced-that-the-world-is-unjust-Am-I-wrong-Will-all-children-one-day-be-able-to-fulfill-their-dreams?

I hope your perception is erroneous. The world exists and humankind’s task is to discover the-literal-truth and how to take advantage of it. It’s an ongoing process, and our generation is alert to its opportunities.

For example, people had to discover that they could not fly like a bird in order to contemplate aerodynamics enough to invent propellers, fuselage, and wings to empower flight. Now, jet propulsion is empowering space travel. The coming generation may colonize a planet. Understanding physics and its progeny excepting psychology seems exponentially increasing.

Heretofore, humans have not contemplated psychological power enough to overcome the mistakes of the past. The current chaos is drawing attention to actual-reality not too different from the losses associated with flying like a bird. I think we are at an abyss and achievable better future will accelerate.

I base my claim on the civic, civil, and legal power of the preamble to the U.S. Constitution, which heretofore has been repressed by the political regimes it spawned. The preamble is neutral to religion, gender, and race. It also offers no standards by which to judge the public disciplines and purpose it offers. Each citizen has the opportunity to consider the preamble and interpret it to order his or her civic, civil, and legal life, even while privately pursuing any heartfelt hopes for his or her mysterious soul.

My interpretation for my way of living is:  We the People of the United States practice 5 public disciplines---integrity, justice, peace, strength, and prosperity---in order to encourage responsible human independence to living citizens now and in the future. I share it to gain fellow citizens’ encouragement to improve my way of living without questioning the mystery of soul.

It seems to me the preamble’s proposition offers mutual, comprehensive safety and security as well as the opportunity for individual happiness rather than submission to the unhappiness someone else specified. Civic integrity, or responsible human independence, seems so attractive, I think its development will accelerate in the near future.

This is a spontaneous response to Daryn Brown’s stimulating question. I used words and phrases from my past individual development. Anyone who questions my sincerity is invited to explore my phrases using online search. For example, the search "Phil Beaver"+"civic people"+"civic integrity" on Google Chrome just now yields an entire first page of URLs to my work from various online sites.

https://www.quora.com/How-can-you-reduce-uncertainty-in-communication?

Have the humility to do the work to comprehend what you want to say, confirm its reliability, don’t judge the other party, and avoid the hubris of showing how much you learned to arrive at a concise statement the other party can efficiently consider for collaboration with you.

https://www.quora.com/Was-there-ever-a-time-that-you-were-close-to-committing-adultery?

From the moment I started courting the woman who became my wife of over 50 years, there never was a moment when I was near failing my developing vow to myself to care for her. I was too awed by her serene confidence, I think grounded in her Louisiana-French Catholic rearing but overarched by her unique responsible human independence. I look back on my attitude as heterophobia over the awesome responsibility in loving her.

Through her, I developed the confidence to discover myself, an ongoing work as I approach transition into my ninth decade (early eighties).

Early on, I was so suspicious of my manhood that I used tricks to prevent relationships that could lead to intimacy. I knew that foreign-intimacy would terminate my self-confidence with my wonderful wife. I consider this self-doubt a flaw stemming from religious indoctrination. Fidelity is a personal commitment that cannot be consigned to theism or other human constructs.

I realized other wives had husbands who understood male vows, and therefore was able to serve on civic boards with women who were confident in my fidelity to my wife. After a quarter-century of marriage, I had confidence in female friendships in which both parties naturally never entered conversation that could lead to attachment, bonding, and intimacy.

I tell this story not as a witness to my manhood but as a statement that my wife’s serene confidence was so impactful there is no way I could have failed it. That is not to say we did not have rocky experiences. She is, after all, an attractive woman after over 50 years of marriage and rearing 3 children, one deceased approaching his 20^th year.

https://www.quora.com/In-your-own-life-what-factors-have-contributed-to-your-political-socialization?

Almost everyone I meet makes me feel most fellow citizens want mutual, comprehensive safety and security so that they can pursue individual happiness rather than the happiness/unhappiness someone would impose on them. They seem aware that happiness comes with individual responsibility. I want to encourage that attitude. I seek a society that would encourage the practice and aid participation by at least 2/3 of inhabitants.

I think a proposed, repressed society offers individual happiness with civic integrity. It is the society of We the People of the United States as proposed in the preamble to the U.S. Constitution. The preamble is an abstract sentence:

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, 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.

Each citizen’s self-interest is served if he or she owns a personal interpretation of this abstract proposition.

Most citizens associate the preamble with the events of 1774, the divided-American movement for independence from Great Britain; divided in that many Americans were loyal to England. Few citizens comprehend that the preamble is itself the U.S. reform from colonial-British-American tradition to “Liberty” to the people. Under political influence and propaganda, most citizens ignore the preamble’s dissolution/termination of the free and independent states’ confederation after 1784’s ratification of the Treaty of Paris. The 1787 U.S. Constitution offers a Union of states held accountable by the civic, civil, and legal citizens, a society that is defined in the preamble.

Note first that the preamble’s subject establishes a legal system for the subordinate object: the entity/society “We the People of the United States” [acts to secure] “to ourselves and our Posterity.” Thus, the living civic society acts for all the people now and in future generations with gratitude for past generations’ integrity to the proposition.

The 1787 Constitution features the phrase “We the People” only once. It uses “people” 2 times, “persons” 16, “person” 6, “officers” 8, “officer” 4 and “office” 34, compared to the amended Constitution with “people” 8 times, “persons” 15, “person” 34, “officers” 11, “officer” 6 and “office” 40. These word counts imply that “we the people” take civic, civil, and legal action for the people, the officers, and the offices. Citizens who do not take interest in statutory justice effectively submit to those who do.

In my interpretation, the preamble proposes 5 public disciplines---integrity, justice, peace, strength, and prosperity---in order to encourage responsible human independence. The preamble’s authors don’t answer for my interpretation, but their abstract proposition invites me to own it and work to improve it. Owning my interpretation is essential to my opportunity to aid responsible human independence for descendants of We the People of the United States.

My interpretation of the preamble’s proposition orders my civic life, and empowers me to claim that I am of the society We the People of the United States. I think it offers the world an achievable better future.

I encourage fellow citizens to own their interpretations and think each who do will consider it one of their prized possessions.

https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-law-in-your-country-that-you-disagree-with-and-think-it-should-be-changed-or-completely-removed?

The article “the” is exclusive. Religion should be excluded from civil consideration.

The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects religion, a mystery, rather than integrity, a human self-interest, both individually and collectively.

It is alright for an individual to develop heartfelt concerns, for example, about his or her mysterious soul, and do the work to resolve them. But it is not alright for government to encourage living without sufficient humility toward whatever-God-is. Demand that fellow citizens civilly worship a personal God is unjust and ultimately a human failure.

I think privatization of religion is the reason the preamble to the U.S. Constitution specifies only 5 public disciplines---Unity, Justice, Tranquility, defense, and Welfare---in order to secure Liberty to the continuum of living citizens. Neither the disciplines nor the purpose specifies either religion or theism.

On that evidence, I assert that Congress’s religion clauses in the First Amendment are unconstitutional and ought to be replaced as a first step in Congress’s reform toward integrity.

https://www.quora.com/Is-patriarchy-the-only-sustainable-social-structure?

I think so, provided there is at least this fidelity to the-literal-truth: the authentic woman cares for her ova---potential, unique, human lives---and the authentic man attends to them for life.

She has both aptitude for caring and vulnerability, especially during her youth. Further, during her fertile years, she will produce perhaps 400 viable ova, so her caring aptitude can be shared among many humans. The authentic man views a woman as a potential crowd of human beings and therefore someone who needs his protection no matter what. Part of the woman’s attention is to allow intimacy only with a man who will reliably care for her and their progeny for life. Their children’s children will have supportive grandparents, at least on their spousal side.

The authentic man is aware of monogamy for life and develops the serene confidence that is necessary to woo the woman he is willing to attend for life. He can develop friendships with many women, but does not pursue commitment unless he trusts the woman and her attention to her ova. Only then does he attempt to bond with the woman. He does not pursue intimacy without well-articulated, mutual trust and commitment.

The awesome responsibility of falling in love with a woman, a mutual action, entails monogamy for life. The responsibility can induce a fear I refer to as heterophobia. Heterophobia can be useful. When a man has a friendship that encourages mutual, serene confidence more than heterophobia, he has probably met the woman for him and ought to bond with her.

All these opinions I deemed necessary to come to the conclusion. Part of the woman’s vulnerability is that the moment she perceives she has bonded to her man, she wants to give herself to him completely. When that happens, the authentic male will not jeopardize the woman and her viable ova.

If my theories represent the-literal-truth, we could interpret the conclusion to be that the authentic male protects the authentic woman in all actions, and therefore, the civic society is a patriarchy. However, it does not follow that every patriarchy is a civic society.

This is a spontaneous response to Gerrit Bernard’s stimulating question. I have used phrases from past work, which readers can discover with creative online search. For example, the search "Phil Beaver"+"civic people"+"heterophobia" on Google Chrome, yields one result, which is my post on my blog.

I write to learn and would appreciate comments.

https://www.quora.com/Is-individualism-the-motivating-force-of-capitalism?

Answer: I think so, and the positive view comes from examining the individually chosen self-interest. If and when the person perceives integrity in his or her best interest, he or she develops it personally rather than tolerates infidelity to the-literal-truth.

Merriam-Webster online, on “individualism” informs us “a doctrine that the interests of the individual are or ought to be ethically paramount [and] the conception that all values, rights, and duties originate in individuals.” I question “doctrine” over “principle” or other softer synonym. Other absolutes seem arbitrary and unnecessary, such as “ethically paramount” and “all values . . . “ Ethics is grounded in discovery of the-literal-truth. When the individual practices integrity, he or she is essential to humankind’s collective discovery of the-literal-truth.

In my opinion, comprehension of individualism as self-interest is possible with some uncommon thoughts about a nest of acceptances. First, a person accepts personal existence as a human being; humans are so psychologically powerful that it takes about 3 decades for an infant to transition into a young adult with comprehension and intent to live a complete human life. Second, civic citizens privately attend to any soul-concerns they may have yet maintain public disciplines that encourage statutory justice among fellow humans. For example, civic citizens retain enough humility toward whatever-God-is to neither evaluate other citizens’ Gods nor offer their own God for comparison. Third, dissidents to human justice remain open to experiences and observations that encourage them to reform; many observations come from the confused and conflicted world and alert the individual to inviting woe. Fourth, the human individual accepts the personal power, energy, and authority (HIPEA) to develop integrity rather than to tolerate infidelity to the-literal-truth. Fifth, regarding needed goods and services, the civic citizen acts in self-interest for developing integrity, whether their anecdotal function is buyer, seller, or one of the many risk-takers. Perhaps the highest risk-taker is the entrepreneur, who perceives a needed good or service and puts together the technology, property, labor, financing, marketing, and profit to effect the public contribution.

The entrepreneur’s motive is profit, and he or she takes self-interest in recognizing that infidelity leads to ruin. The civic citizen appreciates capitalism and participates through public-stock and bond ownership, and converts his or her labor into capital by accumulating wealth. Civic citizens hold government officials accountable for financial systems that prevent responsible individuals from participating in capitalism.

In a civic culture, such as the 1787 U.S. proposition that is expressed in the U.S. Preamble, decisions follow the above principles or better. So far, the USA has not developed its potential for responsible human independence, because the First Congress, 1789-1793 intervened in development of the U.S. proposition by re-establishing colonial British-American traditions.

The most egregious tradition is the church-and-state partnership that is constitutional in England, with specified seats for Church of England officers in Parliament. The U.S. establishment of theism is codified by Congress hiring chaplains to represent U.S. “divinity” in competition with Parliament and the First Amendment’s unconstitutional protection of religion rather than integrity. The Supreme Court justifies this tyranny with various terms like “precedent”, stare decisis, originalism (covertly to English common law) and tradition. In Greece v Galloway, the tyrant in my opinion, Justice Anthony Kennedy refers to my objections as “niggling.” I doubt Kennedy owns a personal interpretation of the U.S. Preamble.

https://www.quora.com/If-you-could-advocate-for-a-cause-what-would-it-be?

Answer: I write daily to encourage education of children and adults to individually accept being human. A nest of acceptances follow.

Each human has the individual power, the individual energy, and the individual authority (HIPEA) to develop either integrity to the-literal-truth or tolerate infidelity; self-interest is served by integrity. Taking advantage of this principle is unlikely, because most extant cultures neither encourage nor coach each youth to discover their unique capacity for integrity.

With current education systems intending to “train the workers we need” it takes about 3 decades for an infant to transition from un-informed to young adult with comprehension and intention to live a complete human life. Again, the individual choice to develop integrity is un-likely, as it is neither encouraged nor coached by most civilizations.

These ideas cannot be called new and are at best new expressions. I think they were developed in the past by Greeks like Agathon and Pericles, American inhabitants/citizens like George Washington, Gouverneur Morris, Thomas Paine, Ralph Waldo Emerson, Kahlil Gibran, and Albert Einstein, to name a few.

Most of all, the preamble to the U.S. Constitution offers a proposition for civic citizens, called “We the People of the United States.” The proposal is, in my view, to establish and maintain 5 public disciplines in order to encourage responsible human independence. Perhaps under current education systems 1/3 of fellow citizens join We the People of the United States during adulthood. With an education system that intends to foster integrity, the participation could be accelerated to 2/3 in a couple years and gradually increased into the 90s within a decade.

Living without civic, civil, and legal contribution to statutory justice is chaos.

https://www.quora.com/What-personal-belief-would-you-never-compromise-on?

Being human, I un-consignably have the individual power, the individual energy, and the individual authority (HIPEA) to develop integrity rather than tolerate infidelity.

https://www.quora.com/Why-do-humans-collaborate-to-the-extent-that-they-do?

I think humans collaborate because the human species is the most cognitively powerful species and develop grammar by which individuals can take advantage of the ineluctable evidence for actual-reality. While citizens inhabit particular locations, not all citizens accept let alone appreciate each other.

The motivation to connect with others may come with a nest of acceptances. Human individuals may accept being human. It takes at least 3 decades for an infant to acquire the comprehension and intention to live a complete human life. While the person may commitment to a soul’s welfare, he or she may retain sufficient humility toward whatever controls actual-reality; as theism, reserve enough humility toward whatever-God-is even while pursing hope through a personal God. The human has the individual power, the individual energy, and the individual authority (HIPEA) to develop integrity rather than tolerate infidelity.

I perceive we are developing an achievable better future. Many believers seem to be practicing both 1) nourishing a soul for the inevitable time when body, mind, and person stop functioning, as well as 2) joining non-believers to develop civic, civil, and legal integrity (responsible human independence) for living.

https://www.quora.com/Does-tolerance-go-hand-in-hand-with-empathy-or-are-they-two-quite-distinct-qualities?

Tolerance is an unfortunate practice that effects stonewalling the self. The tolerated party resents the egocentricity and may feel sorry for the perpetrator’s inability to communicate.

Consider my view of Agathon’s speech in Plato’s “Symposium.” I think Agathon’s chief message is: civic citizens neither initiate nor tolerate harm to or from any person or responsible human society. Intolerance is expressed verbally, directly to the offender, but may be reported to first responders. In self-defense, intolerance may be expressed by strength.

https://www.quora.com/Is-power-a-form-of-authority-or-is-authority-a-form-of-power-Can-one-exist-in-the-absence-of-the-other-If-so-which-one-holds-greater-merit?

I think each human being has the individual power, the individual energy, and the individual authority (HIPEA) with which to develop integrity rather than tolerate infidelity. These characteristics of the human potential work together, and one weakness can lessen the individual’s chances to develop integrity.

His or her natural abilities, encouragement and coaching, intentions, initiative, and choices determine whether or not he or she pursues integrity or drifts into infidelity.

The self-interest in developing integrity at any moment in a person’s development can explode into application of experiences and observations that accumulated with the consequence that astonishing performance begins and accelerates, no matter what chronological decade the person is in.

I think power, energy, and authority are equitably necessary.

https://www.quora.com/In-50-words-or-less-what-should-the-government-perform-or-do-for-a-country? From last week.

Tom Carey

I never read this with this much concentration and now that I have it is a little strange. It was written in the style of the time, but even taking that into consideration it is still a bit odd.

Phil Beaver responded:

My first response to your question was a densely-packed 31 words. You kindly inquired about “living.” My response is a densely-packed 137 words---340% more to explain only one of the original words.

I write patiently for patient readers as well as busy readers whose curiosities might be motivated to explore the neglected civic, civil, and legal powers of the U.S. Preamble. Your reaction is not expressive: style of what time? still? odd? What do these quips mean?

Joining the entity We the People of the United States after centuries tolerating the fruitless “we, the people” is a bit strange for U.S. citizens. Ask a specific question, and I will respond again.

https://www.quora.com/Which-ones-are-the-most-interesting-facts-about-Machiavellianism?

Mr. Hardy, I received, by email, the question, “Can Machiavellianism by a good thing? If so, in what capacity?” When I clicked “answer” it brought me to this question, which I could not possibly answer.

I will answer, as best I can, your first question, according to my opinion. I am aware of a huge body of scholarly study of Machiavelli and doubt anyone knows his opinions, let alone facts about his philosophies.

I think Machiavelli thought through various tyrannies he observed and wrote about them in irony so as to save his access to readers and also save his life. The reader who considers Machiavelli-sarcasm can contemplate what citizens should avoid so as not to choose a government run by tyrants. You might say that is my most interesting opinion about Machiavelli:  He intended us to notice and rely on his sarcasm.

I read “The Prince” in the mid-1990s, as a member of the Great Books Reading and Discussion program. I do not recall reading and discussing Chapter XI. I started studying Chapter XI as part of my quest to understand what it means to be a U.S. citizen. I think the online text has an interesting provider: https://www.constitution.org/mac/prince11.htm but do not know why it’s there.

After a few years, I began to perceive that the Chapter XI message is this, as viewed from the U.S. presidency: A U.S. president is among the luckiest of politicians, because he lives among citizens most of whom believe in their personal God and that their Gods will relieve their descendants from the misery and abuse living citizens suffer from both the church and the state. Also, the believers never consider whether or not whatever-God-is conforms to their personal Gods. Thus, as long as the president maintains a good relationship with the churches, the believers will trust in their personal Gods and neither rebel nor emigrate. The clergy and politicians can pick the people’s pockets with immunity.

I think James Madison and other framers had read “The Prince,” 1513, but did not imagine in 1788 the harm their contentions Gods---Trinities, Unities, Almighties, Judges of the World, Nature’s God, and so on--- promised. In 1789, with a preamble with no standards let alone religion, Congress restored English-American theism, repressing the U.S. Preamble’s proposition: responsible human independence.

Now, in 2020, it seems self-evident that whatever-God-is holds individual inhabitants responsible for integrity, justice, peace, strength, and prosperity in order to encourage responsible human independence to living citizens.

https://www.quora.com/What-causes-the-rise-of-sociology?

Some liberal scholars developed the notion that “science” is an object rather than a process and that by using a process tool, statistics, they could manipulate public opinion, to which public policy sometimes respond and thereby the scholars could gain power over the people.

In reality, science is a process for studying actual-reality by discovering ineluctable evidence for the-objective-truth. To my understanding, the scope of research begins with physics, the object, and all of its progeny, including mathematics, chemistry, biology, psychology, and speculation. Some people practice speculation when the available evidence has been researched and there is no explanation for a perceived concern or observation.

Some people doubt scientific research because researchers rarely conclude that the-objective-truth they discovered is the-literal-truth. Researchers always reserve appreciation for new discovery that may change the-objective-truth yet enhance the approach to the-literal-truth.

Speculation is the branch of physics (or better expression for the source of everything than “physics”) that springs from what is unknown. For example, no one has the knowledge by which to discount whatever-God-is. In other words, it’s doubtful that whatever-God-is conforms to anyone’s personal God. Yet, because whatever-God-is has no ineluctable evidence, people claim to represent the origin of everything and call their theoretical power “God,” with no humility at all. Acting on speculation often invites woe.

Back to sociology, self-styled social scientist speculate that because they label their work “science” they’ll be able to influence people as they like. The method is to consider the desired influence, design a statistical study so as to favor the influence, select objects of a questionnaire, conduct the survey eliminating opinions that could lead outside the selected alternatives, analyze the statistics so as to favor the influence, and finally, rely on a cooperative media to help influence the public. In other words, the media report the study results as they are told to.

The entire effort is pseudo-science promoted on the assumption that public poles determine public opinion and public opinion controls public policy, so the partnership of social science and complicit media can control the people. Unfortunately for political science, the U.S. is a republic under the rule of law, not a democracy. Therefore, social democracy is a failure.

I am expressing only my opinion. However, there seems evidence of my theory in the recent impeachment of President Donald Trump. The Democrat-controlled House of Representatives conducted an unconstitutional hearing that skillfully used deep-state witnesses to represent the higher opinion in the debate with the Trump administration’s conduct. The media expressed dismay that the president would not yield to deep state diplomats and career officials. The Democrats were fooled by social scientists and their media partners to believe that false claims could sway the public and dictate conviction in the Senate. They continue to press this woeful assumption.

The administration’s lawyers made a compelling case that the impeachment and its perpetrators were false. Democrats in the Senate swore to uphold the U.S. Constitution and tailed off their oath with “so help me God.” Only Mitch Romney claimed his religion (the Mormon God) alienated him from the U.S. Constitution. I hope Romney forever damned Mormon saints from elected office. However, almost all the Democrats voted neither their personal Gods nor the U.S. Constitution: they voted Democrat.

Now, Mr. Yasmin, you may be wondering how my tale relates to the rise of sociology. I speculate social science a religious movement that its founding scholars believed could defeat theism, in particular Christianity, as the basis for civic integrity. However, it is a lost cause, because integrity does not conform to opinion.

https://www.quora.com/Dignity-honor-respect-and-the-keeping-of-ones-promises-have-seemingly-faded-Do-you-beg-to-differ?

I think humankind knows more about civic integrity than ever and U.S. failures are emerging into public awareness.

The U.S. Preamble is a proposition for 5 disciplines of by and for fellow citizens in order to encourage responsible human independence. Civic citizens voluntarily observe and maintain their interpretations of the proposition. Other citizens are dissidents (whether passive or active), or aliens, or traitors. Many fellow citizens have no civic integrity.

The possibility for me to hold these opinions was created by the First Congress and has been maintained by Congress, the Supreme Court, and the administrations ever since. Whereas the U.S. Preamble proposed psychological independence from Great Britain’s common law, the First Congress did all it could to re-establish Chapter XI Machiavellianism: church-state-partnership with immunity to pick the people’s pocket because the people believe that whatever-God-is will relieve them of the losses and misery.

The U.S. failure to practically separate state from church has resulted in the chaos the entity/society We the People of the United States suffers. Close examination of the U.S. Preamble suggests that only We the People of the United States can establish and practice its proposition, and thereby hold fellow citizens who accept elected or appointed office to conform to the U.S. Preamble in their execution of the offices.

As always, I write opinion so as to learn from fellow citizens or others who will comment.

https://www.quora.com/Is-private-property-a-social-construct?

Globally, I don’t think so. Locally it probably is a constructed, social norm.

Property may be any product of human labor. For example, this response to your question is my private property and remains so when I post it. In just human relations, products of labor are owned by the worker, unless he or she negotiates remuneration for time and talents in exchange for ownership. The entity that takes property without negotiation is a tyrant if not criminal.

The negotiation is a social relationship to determine the value of the labor and talents in creating the product/service. A doctor’s talents are high in medical care and low in the practice of law. A judge’s talents in the law may be high with civic citizenship low. For example, a judge who would terminate a fellow citizen’s life over a misdemeanor ought to be fired.

Humankind strives for a market wherein every wanted service and product is paid for sufficiently to sustain the worker’s human lifestyle. The worker who can only supply minimal labor must save and invest to build wealth for family events and for personal retirement, and therefore must live a reserved lifestyle. The doctor, whose talents warrant higher pay may enjoy a more liberal lifestyle, which he or she earned by acquiring the talents and skills. Unfortunately, many judges and lawyers especially view themselves as above the entity We the People of the United States, and therefore do not accept the disciplines and purpose proposed in the U.S. Preamble. Many fellow citizens are aliens to the U.S. Preamble’s proposition.

I think private property is an element of human justice that humankind develops only in writing. The approachable goal is perfect law enforcement: statutory justice. Perfect justice comes from comprehending and practicing the-literal-truth. Humankind approaches the-literal-truth by discovering and taking advantage-of the-objective-truth using ineluctable evidence rather than adopting opinion and continually improving the instruments of perception.

How a particular culture/civilization develops statutory justice (including property ownership) seems a social construct. Some cultures bemuse themselves with concepts like fairness to compete with justice. However, the-literal-truth involves neither emotions nor passion---only actual-reality, as observed with the ineluctable evidence.

This is an original response to Martin Palastrov’s creative question that he directed to me. I express opinions, and anyone who regards them as truths does so on their own; I write to learn positive or negative criticism. I used words and phrases I often use. For example, just now I used the Google Chrome search: "Phil Beaver"+"civic people"+"the-literal-truth". The results numbered 6, one of which has 13 results, or 18 total.

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.