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.