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: ”A civic citizen of the
United States develops 5 public disciplines
(integrity, justice, peace, strength, and prosperity) in order to enjoy
responsible human independence with
fellow citizens.” 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
Congress,1789-2020, imposes English tradition to repress
U.S. disciplines to human independence
The British Chapter XI Machiavellianism---Canterbury
dominated Parliament---which Congress mimicked by hiring factional-American
ministers has bemused U.S. citizens so effectively that reform from
colonial-British impositions in the 13 original colonies has, so far, not commenced
much less advanced.
The consequence after 231 years under U.S. Congress is the
chaos of alien social-democracy in this republic. It is intended for the rule
of statutory law-enforcement under the-literal-truth. The U.S. Supreme Court
has the hubris to support legislative prayer by tradition, accusing “the good
People” who object as “niggling”; see Greece v Galloway (2014).
The 1776 Declaration of Independence from England avoided
Canterbury’s “the Trinity” using deist phrases---Nature’s God, Creator, Supreme
Judge, and Providence---whatever-God-is. However, the action was “We . . . the
Representatives . . .in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these
Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of
Right ought to be Free and Independent States.” In 1787, 2/3 of the framers repeated
the good people’s authority but without reference to whatever-God-is. Only 39
of 55 framers signed the U.S. preamble with the good people’s intentions stated
in the preamble.
The preamble includes no standards for attainment of the
intentions, implying that the continuum of proposition-accepting “ourselves and
our Posterity,” in other words, good posterity’s posterity will discover the culture
of individual happiness with civic integrity. However, with help from over 70
fellow citizens, my interpretation today of the U.S. Preamble’s intentions is:
this civic citizen practices and nurtures 5 public disciplines---integrity,
justice, peace, strength, and prosperity---in order to enjoy and encourage
responsible human independence among fellow inhabitants.
As we have seen lately, liberty is too often taken as
license to injure fellow citizens or their property with immunity. In other
words, the party with the license to liberty need not interview the victim of
his or her demands. Shockingly, many congress persons do not own
interpretations of the preamble’s proposition. As long as “the good People”
brook Anglo-American Chapter XI Machiavelianism, the chaos will progress. With
2/3 of citizens developing their individual practice of the U.S. Preamble’s proposition,
under the-objective-truth if not the-literal-truth, an achievable better future
will begin to unfold.
It seems to this citizen the societies and associations most
needing reform to human integrity are elected and appointed government
officials, judges and lawyers, writers for the media, non-STEM teachers, and
the clergy. That is, it seems their members tend to be aliens to the U.S.
Preamble’s proposition; but not all members---maybe only 2/3. This is only my
opinion.
Columns
Shame on writers
for The Advocate (Mark Ballard) (https://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/opinion/mark_ballard/article_37844f5e-c2c9-11ea-aef4-6b8f0cf12392.html?)
It’s not uncommon for writers for The Advocate to use
opinion columns to report news with no personal evaluation and recommendation.
I think opinion columns ought to proffer well-grounded opinion.
In this case, a writer for The Advocate could take advantage
of reported meetings, now in their 7th year at EBRP Libraries, to promote
public use of the preamble to the U.S. Constitution.
The U.S. Preamble has two thoughts. First, we the people
create these laws and institutions to establish the USA as a global nation.
Second, we proffer a citizen’s agreement to develop 5 public disciplines “in
order to” encourage responsible human independence.
I hope past participants gained from the meetings; I did. I
listened to opinions about: to the individual, 1) what does it mean to be a human
being and 2) what does it mean to be a U.S. citizen?
First, discovering that you are a human being offers
opportunity to take charge of the transition from child to adult with the human
comprehension and individual intention to live a complete human life. That is,
chronologically expected and psychologically all your unique person can be.
Second, accepting U.S. citizenship begins with discovering
and considering the abstractly stated purpose of the U.S. Constitution. With
reliable coaching and encouragement, writers for the press would not only own
an interpretation of the U.S. Preamble’s proposition, they’d be journaling the
domestic path to discovered standards for the 6 citizens’ goals: Union,
Justice, Tranquility, defence, Welfare, and Benefits.
Just as each citizen is a unique person, he or she may
consider the proffered U.S. Preamble to order their particular civic, civil,
legal, and spiritual conduct. Since its goal is individual happiness with civic
integrity, owning an interpretation is in the citizens’ self-interest.
On July 5, 2020, I accepted, late in my eighth decade, that
developing a practice includes encouraging fellow citizens but does not invite
preaching. Therefore, I changed my interpretation so as to speak only for me: A
civic citizen of the United States develops 5 public disciplines (integrity,
justice, peace, strength, and prosperity) in order to enjoy responsible human
independence with fellow citizens [updated to "develops" just now].
I think a legitimate Pulitzer Prize was proffered to The
Advocate on the day 9 states ratified the U.S. Constitution on June 21, 1788:
Responsible Human Independence Day. Any day now, The Advocate can/cannot
release its burden and collect an opportunity.
Quora
https://www.quora.com/How-do-you-promote-equality-and-inclusion?
First, I point out that the Greeks, over 2400 years ago
suggested that citizens may develop human equity under statutory justice. Such
a culture would proffer to each individual the opportunity to develop
individual happiness with civic integrity.
Second, each human ovum and each spermatozoon is unique. In
conception, they form a unique, single-cell embryo. None of the developments
after that effect reduction in individuality, so the being remains unique until
death. The idea of some thing or someone or some institution making two human
beings equal is therefore laughable. The people who claim they are due equality
express personal privation.
Third, in my birth-country, signers of the 1787 U.S. Constitution
(1/3 of delegates were dissident) intentionally proffered an abstract statement
of purpose. By experience and observation, they excluded standards so that
posterity’s posterity would be unconstrained in their pursuit of civic
integrity under the-objective-truth if not the-literal-truth.
To benefit from these opportunities, each citizen may do the
work to develop their interpretation of the U.S. Preamble’s proposition by
which to plan their civic, civil, legal, and spiritual development and share
the plan with their family so that descendants my avoid any errors. Dialogue
with over 70 fellow citizens has aided my studies to acquire my interpretation
today: this civic citizen practices and encourages 5 public disciplines---integrity,
justice, peace, strength, and posterity---“in order to” enjoy and encourage responsible
human independence among fellow inhabitants, especially my family.
Dissidents against human justice and other aliens exclude
themselves from the U.S. Preamble’s proffered opportunity.
Both
“relative ethics” and the greater good are corrupt ideas. The catalog of social
ethics does not inform human integrity. For example, journalism so denied its
ethics that bold lies are published and promoted daily. Law so denied its
ethics that the Supreme Court brandishes English-precedent to defeat the U.S.
proposition. Any phrase referencing John Locke’s writing is suspect.
What
humankind demands is to journal the path toward developing integrity, complete
with the error-assessments. Wikipedia is an attempt at such journalism, but like
the rest, it has no standards by which recorded-public-input can be measured
for reliability. On the other hand, maybe Wikipedia’s approach is best when a
civic culture hopes for posterity’s posterity to comprehend the-objective-truth
if not the-literal-truth. In other words, living citizens only help discover
integrity given a world of conflict.
In
a civic culture, civic human-individuals consider, collaborate, and connect in
order to discover integrity; that is, the-literal-truth; in other words, the-objective-truth,
continually improved by discovering new instruments for perceiving the
ineluctable evidence. In such a culture, civic citizens enjoy responsible human
independence among fellow inhabitants including dissidents to statutory
justice. In such a culture, civic citizens expect, under civic integrity, to
achieve the happiness they perceive rather than tolerate the happiness someone
else wants for them.
For
example, the U.S. Civil War makes it plain that whatever-God-is assigned to
humankind the responsibility for peace on earth. States that favored slavery,
based on their Christian ministers’ teaching (blacks were being punished by God
for past sins), considered the Christian ministers in the North “evil
abolitionists” trying to accelerate God’s plan. The white-on-white enmity was
made plain in Bleeding Kansas, 1856. With a states-might ratio of 7:27, the
1860 CSA erroneously, unconstitutionally, fired on Fort Sumter. Military might
decided the military outcome. However, the supremacy issue rages today in a
faction of African-American Christianity among other black-God theisms. Some
whites join the erroneous theism based on 1619-imposed-guilt for humankind’s
slavery-injustice dating from more than 10,000 years ago and recorded in Egypt
5,000 years ago.
Perhaps
CSA leaders assumed that just as “Nature’s God,” “the Creator,” “the Supreme
Judge,” and “Providence,” empowered the states’ war for independence from
England’s “the Trinity,” the South’s particular whatever-God-is would overcome
the unfavorable odds of the 13-colonies overpowering the empire. Perhaps they
denied France’s dominance in the 1781 battle at Yorktown, VA, when Cornwallis
surrendered to Rochambeau and Washington. In any case, the CSA overlooked the
responsibility for human independence they had declared in 1776: “. . . in the
Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish
and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and
Independent States.” This sentence civically, civilly, legally, and spiritually
makes no claim to a God’s authority or blessing.
To
cut this story shorter, the 55 framers of the U.S. Constitution during the
summer of 1787 considered the world’s political philosophies and, intentionally
or not, touched on the possibility of terminating the tradition of Christian,
Chapter XI Machiavellianism or church-dominated-state-partnership the 13
Anglo-American colonies had inherited from the British Empire’s human squabbles
and wars. Of the 55 framers, 16 expressed dissidence by not signing, leaving
only 39 delegates from only 12 states as framers and signers, who recorded
termination of “founding fathers’” erroneous politics, as yet un-effected. Like
14-year old parents, the First Congress was too adolescent to develop the U.S.
Preamble’s proposition, so they re-established Anglo-American precedence as
much as they could---legally or not. Congress has practiced that tyranny ever
since, and the Supreme Court has, so far collaborated in the alienation of both
the Declaration of Independence’s “the good People” and the 1787 U.S.
Constitution’s “We the People of the United States.” (See Greece v Galloway,
2014, wherein my concerns are labeled “niggling,” much as the U.S. Preamble’s
proposition is falsely labeled “secular.”)
In
a civic culture, citizens consider, communicate, collaborate, and connect in
order to discover the-literal-truth and benefit from it with integrity
(reliably and wholly; not in solidarity or in unity) rather than nurture
infidelity. Civic citizens encourage dissident fellow inhabitants to reform;
they distinguish independence from liberty, which is too often taken as license
to harm people and their property. Citizens who oppose civic integrity create
the qualification “corrupt,” as they borrow benefits from the civic culture
while picking its pocket.
Most
egregiously, many elected and appointed officials do not own a personal
interpretation of the U.S. Preamble’s proposition, and the clergy blatantly
reject it. I share mine hoping someone else will improve it (over 70 people
helped me to today’s statement): this civic citizen of the U.S. practices and
promotes 5 public disciplines---integrity, justice, peace, strength, and
prosperity---in order to enjoy and encourage responsible human independence
among fellow inhabitants.
I
hope someone comments. And I hope responsible human independence will turn
today’s rapid, alien-funded decline into the abyss of social democracy with intentions to defeat the U.S.
republic.
I think both good v evil and right v wrong are distractions
from integrity to the-objective-truth if not the-literal-truth.
The-objective-truth improves each time humankind discovers a
new instrument of perception and approaches of not attains the-literal-truth.
Humankind uses research of the ineluctable evidence to discover
the-objective-truth.
Human constructs, such as reason, revelation, persuasion,
coercion, and force are scholarly tools to attempt to control people.
However, the human species is too powerful to accept control.
Government-by-consent is an attempt to control people by persuasion. The person
who accepts that he or she is a human being may also accept the individual
power, the individual energy, and the individual authority (HIPEA) to develop
integrity. If so, he or she will develop the public discipline by which to
enjoy the self-interest of responsible human independence.
These concepts have been tacitly expressed in the proffered
preamble to the U.S. Constitution. The First Congress falsely repressed the preamble
as secular, whereas it is neutral to religion, and Congress along with the
Supreme Court has kept the preamble ineffective since then.
When 2/3 of citizens develop their individual interpretation
of the preamble to guide their civic, civil, legal, and spiritual living, an
achievable better future will emerge under the standards being continually
improved by posterity’s posterity.
There is no competition between good v evil and right v
wrong when fellow citizens are connecting for equity under statutory justice.
None of these political philosophers compare with Albert
Einstein, who informed us that physics (the object of research) and its progeny
(for examples, mathematics, chemistry, psychology, fiction and integrity),
conform to the same laws. See and interpret for yourself Einstein’s essay at https://samharris.org/my-friend-einstein/.
Or Ralph Waldo Emerson, who informed us that Jesus’ tacit message, perfect your
unique self, can be taken without risk as the-literal-truth. See https://archive.vcu.edu/english/engweb/transcendentalism/authors/emerson/essays/dsa.html.
The scholars who labor over the ideas from the past without
considering Einstein, Emerson, and the other 8 in the list, may have never
accepted the power of being a human individual first and a scholar second.
In the society of individuals who accept that they are human
beings, there are those who further accept that each individual has the power,
energy, and authority (HIPEA) to develop integrity rather than either correct
or traditionalize scholarly error or initiate infidelity to the-literal-truth. Among
those who accept integrity, almost everyone accepts that a civic citizen
neither initiates nor tolerates harm to or from any person or institution.
Neglecting these human-acceptances is the fault of Education
Departments---local, state, and national ones. I can’t stop grieving Barack
Obama’s second inaugural speech: “Together we determined that a modern economy
requires . . . schools and colleges to train our workers.” With future
political regimes who promote the personal proposal that is proffered in the
preamble to the U.S. Constitution, Education Departments can focus on
encouraging each citizen to self-discipline in order to enjoy the self-interest
of integrity. Only engaged, civic citizens can hold government accountable.
Perhaps when U.S. psychological independence from English
precedents (Blackstone and Canterbury) overcomes the preservation of the false
claim that the U.S. Preamble is a secular sentence and when 2/3 of citizens are
engaged in its public disciplines, Gouverneur
Morris, the Chairman of the 1787 Committee of Style, will emerge as the most
beneficial person in history. The person who causes Congress to reform from its
repression of the U.S. Preamble will be in Morris’s list.
Fellow citizens who do not comprehend
the U.S. Preamble’s proposition are encouraged to consider the above,
unexpected addition of Morris to the Einstein-Emerson list as evidence of reliability
for scholarly study.
https://www.quora.com/unanswered/How-do-you-balance-ethics-and-context?
Your question seems profound. “Context” is well represented
for another complex application by https://philippe.kruchten.com/2009/07/22/the-context-of-software-development/.
MW online takes “ethics” as “the principles of conduct governing an individual
or a group.”
Thus, ethics is particular to the society and is the journaled
standards by which membership-compliance is measured. Most humans associate
with more than one society, and problems arise when ethics they appreciate in
one society conflict with another society’s ethics.
However, worldwide, people regard each other as enemies
based on various characteristics. There’s dominant-conflict regarding skin
color. Ernest J. Gaines suggested that individuals
may prioritize each other’s social standing by shade from white to black. And
some African-American Christians expect slavery of white people. In other
words, just as Jesus was brown, God is black, even in unity with the Holy Spirit.
While I don’t agree with this theory, I have no problem with people worshipping
a God in their own image if they don’t pray to that God to harm other humans.
It seems to me it is alright for a person to have a God that provides him or
her hope and comfort as long as he or she reserves sufficient humility and
appreciation for whatever-God-is.
It seems obvious that there is an
overarching ethics that applies to every human being. Further, every humanly
responsible society/association makes certain their identifying ethics do not
conflict with human ethics. The question then is what distinguishes members of
a society/association as also human beings? By what standard does a person
accept that he or she is a human being?
Humans are superior to other
species by two powers: awareness and grammar. Grammar enables humans to develop
integrity to the-objective-truth (based on the ineluctable evidence) if not
the-literal-truth. But not every human perceives the self-interest to develop
integrity. Every human individual has the individual power, the individual
energy, and the individual authority (HIPEA) to choose infidelity.
Simply put, humankind is divided
according to the person’s choice to aid mutual, comprehensive safety and
security (MCSS) or not. The faction that chooses MCSS discovers integrity and
journals the context. As the journal is affirmed and approved by invention of
new instruments of perception, the-objective-truth approaches
the-literal-truth. The journal of discovery of integrity is the ethics of being
human.
These ideas were developed by the
study of the U.S. Preamble’s proposition so as to discover my personal
interpretation: a civic U.S. person develops 5 public disciplines in order to
encourage and enjoy responsible human independence among fellow citizens.
I think so. What is needed is a culture that inculcates
civic engagement so that at least 2/3 of citizens empower responsible human
independence; that is, individual happiness with civic integrity; that is,
mutual comprehensive safety and security.
The U.S. Preamble proffers a citizens’ proposition which I
interpret as follows: This civic citizen practices 5 public disciplines
(integrity, justice, peace, strength, and prosperity) so as to enjoy and
encourage responsible human independence with inhabitants.
https://www.quora.com/What-defines-a-civic-issue?
As I use the term, civics is more about neighborly human
connections than municipal support. Civic citizens mutually behave whether they
are in the city, in the woods, in outer space, or wherever.
Human beings are the most aware species and have developed
grammar by which to continually improve connections for mutual, comprehensive
safety and security. Inhabitants choose to either engage in civic development
or in descent. There will always be a need for civil and criminal law.
The civic citizen considers, collaborates, and connects to
create individual happiness with civic integrity. In civic integrity, the
individual aids development of equity under statutory justice, an approachable
perfection of written law-enforcement. Posterity’s posterity will set the
standards.
https://www.quora.com/How-do-you-qualify-humans-as-rational-beings-but-90-act-irationaly?
It seems obvious that scholars who claim humans are not
likely to want to be good are wrong. Most people want comprehensive safety and
security so that they can pursue the happiness they perceive rather than
tolerate the happiness someone else envisions for them.
The newborn infant is totally ignorant and may develop in
three major phases: acquiring the comprehension and intention to live a
complete human life; serving fellow citizens for 3-4 decades so as to earn the
lifestyle he or she wants and to acquire the experience and observations needed
for wisdom; and evaluating the outcome so as to share with posterity.
With early discovery and acceptance of being human, the
person may discover and accept individual power, energy, and authority (HIPEA)
to develop integrity rather than tolerate infidelity to self. However, discovering
the practice of integrity is unlikely, because no culture teaches acceptance of
HIPEA.
Most cultures inculcate a search for higher power---either
God, government, or a partnership of the two. The human lifespan is too short
for acceptance of HIPEA and choice of the self-interest of integrity, so until
Education Departments choose to teach these principles and more, most humans
will be less psychologically mature than they could be.
I don’t know. Everything that follows is my opinion: I think
chaos.
Human life begins with the ovum and its pared gamete the
spermatozoon, which form a single-cell embryo. Each embryo is unique and
influenced by the physical and psychological wellness the mom and dad
maintained for themselves. In the various challenges to survival, uniqueness
increases rather than lessens, again by physical and psychological influences.
The newborn infant is totally ignorant (H.S. Overstreet) and
needs about 3 decades to transition to an adult with the comprehension and
intention to live a complete human life, another 3-5 decades to earn the
lifestyle he or she wants, and perhaps 2 more decades to consider and perhaps
share their experiences with posterity. Many people die before they develop
ideas worthy of sharing with posterity.
Cultures, some having developed from perhaps 2 million years
ago, undergo similar evolutions from ignorance to worthy principles. Many
cultures perished, for example, those that believed supernatural powers would
bargain for human sacrifice. However, the extant cultures more or less are
constructs from less or more erroneous pasts. Thus, newborns in obsolete
cultures have less chance of developing worthy ideas during their lifetimes.
About 2,400 years ago, the Greeks suggested, in my
interpretation using more recent discoveries, that citizens may develop equity
under statutory justice. This implies that some citizens reject equity and have
no interest in justice. Many cultures that consider the Greek suggestion reject
it for reasons they may or may not understand. For example, the British Empire
felt it could establish global advantage with favorable partnership with
Christianity. It’s struggles with Rome and the Reformation guided it to a
reformed Catholicism in Canterbury and assigned Canterbury-seats in Parliament.
Consequently, England today maintains the English Chapter XI Machiavellianism
of civic imposition of Canterbury merely because English subjects all the
tyranny.
It seems to me that without a voluntary agreement such as:
civic citizens maintain disciplines in order to encourage responsible human
independence, followed by enforceable laws and organizations to favor civic
citizens and reform dissidents, democracy’s chaos will prevail.
https://www.quora.com/Can-you-be-always-morally-right-and-fair-all-at-the-same-time?
I think so, by basing your posture on the ineluctable
evidence rather than a human construct, such as statutory law. When they
conflict, you observe the law until revision toward statutory justice has been
worked out.
In a ridiculous hypothetical, suppose your culture had a law
dictating that in a tsunami it was illegal to move to higher ground if you do
not aid other citizens. The citizen who let confusion motivate him or her to
lose the feasibility to help others might not survive to lobby for statutory
justice.
The question is: what is the standard by which morality is
measured. I suggest that it is physics and its progeny such as mathematics,
chemistry, etc., rather than statutory law or even statutory justice, which may
not be fully apprehended.
Perhaps a viable goal, suggested by the Greeks, over 2,400
year ago may be, in my interpretation: humans may develop equity under
statutory justice using the-objective-truth if not the-literal-truth.
Most usage of “debate” refers to contention.
Merriam-Webster, verb, offers “to turn over in one's mind.” I regard
connections with neighbors in the same way: I listen out of self-interest.
I like to consider heartfelt concerns by arriving at a
well-grounded resolution alone and then finding a fellow citizen with enough
interest to listen to my concern and solution. I expect the other person to
question some of my words, phrases, and assumptions so as to confirm that they
comprehended the essence of my speech. Once that process is complete, the
listener may become speaker, in which case, I change to listener.
My purpose is to get outside my psychological tunnel so as
to take advantage of the other person’s experiences and observations. It’s much
like trading shopping experiences: you learn about products you never imagined
or saw advertised.
I do. Especially when the municipality has marked the lane
not to be crossed, here using a solid-white line. Following Agathon’s
suggestion 2,400 years ago (neither cause nor tolerate harm to or from anyone),
I do not practice such driving and am alert to, without tailgating, not invite
offenders to move in front of me.
https://www.quora.com/Is-social-justice-pandering-to-and-increasing-divisive-identity-politics?
Definitely.
What’s needed is a culture that encourages each person to accept
being a human and to aid mutual, comprehensive safety and security so that each
person may pursue the happiness they want at each stage of their quest for
integrity to their person rather than infidelity. (Education Departments need
to reform.)
At best, there’s perhaps 3 decades of transition from feral
infant to young adult with comprehension and intention to live a
psychologically complete human life; another 3-4 decades of service to fellow
citizens so as to earn a desired lifestyle, gain experience, and observe, in
order to develop knowledge if not wisdom; and perhaps another couple decades to
share with posterity.
A better future with fewer Alinsky-Marxist organizers (AMO)
is possible is more citizens accept their unique opportunity to be a human
being. With 2/3 of citizens so developing, there would emerge a culture of
individual happiness with civic integrity.
For about 2,400 years political scholars have been trying to
defeat civic suggestions recorded by the Greeks. For example, in my view with
the benefit of modern discoveries, humankind can develop equity under statutory
justice.
Every person is unique, so equality is out of the question.
There will always be people who for reasons they may or may not understand do
not want justice, so there will remain a need for written law-enforcement. As
injustice is discovered, the law may be amended so that justice is approached
if not achieved.
The declaration of independence issued by the Anglo-American
colonists states “and by Authority of the good People of . . . these United
Colonies are . . . Free and Independent States.” Eleven years later, American
independence won by France, the U.S. Preamble stated “We the People of the
United States” develop 5 public disciplines “in order to” encourage responsible
human independence to fellow citizens.
This is a proposition for individual happiness with civic
integrity. For the first time in the world, self-discipline for mutual,
comprehensive safety and security was proposed. No matter whether the “good
People” according to the U.S. preamble are in the minority or in the majority,
their interest should prevail.
If the faction of U.S. citizens on some path toward using
the U.S. Preamble to domestically encourage civic, civil, legal, and spiritual
living increases to 2/3, there may emerge a noticeably better future.
I don’t relate to human rights either as popularly conceived
or as UN specifies. I think the 1940s Roosevelts were both tyrants to try to
specify rights, especially freedom from want and freedom from fear.
The problem is “morality” without reliable standards. By
what standard does any culture establish rights? I think the only way cultures
can survive is if they encourage and coach inhabitants to conform to physics
(the object of study) and its progeny. So far, no culture has tried that human-education
system.
History suggests that martial might makes right. For
example, the 1774 confederation of eastern seaboard, Anglo-American colonies
changed their global-styles to free and independent states and began to
organize for independence from England. The 1776 declaration of independence
tacitly claims the states’ “Nature’s God” would defeat the English Trinity (a
reformed-Roman Trinity). Providence, Supreme Judge, and Creator also expressed
hubris rather than humility toward whatever-God-is.
France was then in continual war with England and joined the
American military in strength and strategy. Yorktown, VA, 1781 was a France vs
England war-extension with assistance from the continental army. It was decided
by French military strategy and might. However, to this day, American political
regimes arrogantly claim allegiance “under God,” turning their backs on both
whatever-God-is and 1781 France.
Further, the American Civil War was a matter of 27 free
states sustaining the unconstitutional attack by 7 slave states who claimed the
North was influenced by a “more erroneous religious belief.” White, Christian
slave interests held that white Christian slave-abolitionists were “evil” in
trying to accelerate “Christianity’s plan” for redemption of black-skinned
people. With an awful strength ratio, 7:27, the slavers perceived their Trinity
would carry the day, not accepting that their Trinity also inspired the
abolitionists. Accepting physics rather than metaphysics is the key to human
survival.
Human beings have the independent power, energy, and
authority (HIPEA) to develop integrity rather than tolerate infidelity---benefit
from physics rather than impose metaphysics. A person’s HIPEA cannot be
consigned, and if he or she does not discover and choose integrity, his or her
unique opportunity in life is lessened. In other words, integrity is in the
individual’s self-interest. Since humankind is comprised of individuals,
integrity is in humankind’s best interest. No entity can guaranteed human life
much less property and happiness. Perhaps the only viable human right is the
opportunity to develop integrity.
https://www.quora.com/Is-society-capable-of-self-governance?
No.
Humankind must conform to physics and its progeny: mathematics, chemistry,
biology, psychology, and imagination.
Human
success stems from civic, civil, and legal discipline “in order to” develop
responsible human independence so as to conform to physics and its progeny.
Self-governance
is a mistaken Lockean idea that depends on whatever-God-is rather than
integrity.
https://www.quora.com/What-do-you-think-a-government-should-provide-to-its-citizens?
The opportunity and encouragement to apply their human
individual power, energy, and authority to develop integrity rather than
tolerate/nurture infidelity to self.
That principle is in my view of the proffered U.S. Preamble.
https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-need-of-religious-tolerance?
First, while intolerance is useful, “tolerance” bemuses
civic dialogue. In discussion of heartfelt concerns, I stonewall the
conversation (abruptly comment about the weather or latest sports event) the
moment I perceive the other party is tolerating my civic concerns, opinions, or
person.
I assert that most human beings are intolerant of receiving
tolerance and don’t articulate it. Human individuals have the power, the
energy, and the authority (HIPEA) to develop integrity rather than nurture
infidelity to their person.
Many people, both believers and non-believers reserve
sufficient humility toward whatever-God-is. Such people take comfort and find
hope in their vision of their personal afterdeath. For example, my
accomplishments will survive long after my body, mind, and person stop
functioning. My accomplishments depend on my family only to the extent of my
learning from them, which is substantial.
I don’t know their religions but always appreciate their
diversely responsible persons. I feel the same way about my neighbors, no
matter where they are in their paths to civic integrity; responsible human
independence.
In a culture of responsible human independence, spiritual
hopes and comforts are private pursuits rather than civic concerns.
These ideas are influenced by my interpretation of the
preamble to the U.S. Constitution for me, a living citizen.
https://www.quora.com/unanswered/What-is-your-favorite-unwritten-rule-in-society?
Express
heartfelt civic concern with integrity (well-grounded and clearly articulated),
suggest the solution you want to practice, and LISTEN to your fellow
inhabitant.
For
example: I think many U.S. citizens perceive no self-interest in the USA’s
stated proposition and suggest that concerned citizens develop for personal
practice their interpretation of the preamble to the U.S. Constitution.
The
interpretation I developed through dispersed dialogue with over 70 people is:
This citizen develops integrity, justice, peace, strength, and prosperity “in
order to” enjoy responsible human independence among U.S. inhabitants.
I’m
listening, after a couple decades urgently pleading (preaching, some might
say).
https://www.quora.com/Who-has-been-the-most-unethical-person-of-2020/answer
Mitt
Romney proclaimed that his religion (Mormon sainthood) alienates him from the
U.S. Constitution.
Based
on Romney’s witness, no Mormon should ever be elected or appointed to public
office: They have alien allegiance they cannot resist: sainthood.
https://www.quora.com/Whats-the-golden-rule-and-how-can-you-live-with-a-golden-rule?
There are many variations of the egocentric golden rule. One
that seems almost doable is “Don’t do to another what you don’t want done to
you.”
But even that version is egocentric. What if you need
self-discipline and your caregiver is undisciplined? The caregiver followed the
golden rule at your expense, too. I think the golden rule is just another
strategy for trying to impose a church doctrine on humans. Individuals are more
amenable to civic integrity than churches are.
A civic culture is guided by principles like: accept that
you are human, who needs at least 3 decades from babyhood in order to
transition to adulthood with comprehension and intention to live a complete
human life; develop responsible human independence under statutory justice;
develop mutual, comprehensive safety and security more than civilization;
neither initiate nor tolerate harm to or from any person or their association;
accept sufficient humility toward whatever-God-is; help posterity’s posterity
approach the standard for human integrity (and the journal of the path to human
ethics).
These principles emerge from one citizen’s interpretation of the people’s
proposition that is proffered in the preamble to the U.S. Constitution: a civic citizen develops integrity, justice,
peace, strength, and prosperity so as to encourage responsible human
independence to fellow citizens.
I think the golden rule is human arrogance
that ought not be tolerated.
https://www.quora.com/What-is-something-that-is-completely-legal-but-totally-immoral-to-do?
The
U.S. government civically, civilly, and legally imposes “freedom of religion”
when it is obvious that no one represents whatever-controls-actual-reality yet
each person in the world has the assigned responsibility for statutory justice.
People who claim their God is in control have not the sufficient humility to
behold whatever-God-is. Such humility demands the acceptance: I don’t know.
No
citizen of any country should be coerced to beg “God bless [my country]” when
he or she has neither the hubris to claim knowledge of whatever-God-is nor the
inequity to impose on other persons.
These
ideas come from the proffered preamble to the U.S. Constitution.
https://www.quora.com/Is-parenthood-an-inalienable-right?
No.
First, the origin of human life is the ovum and the
spermatozoon, each of which is owed the dignity and equity of not suffering
human neglect. The man or the woman who neglects personal wellbeing ought not
procreate or parent.
Second, it takes 3 decades for a newborn baby to transition
into a young adult with the comprehension and intention to live a complete
human life. The man or woman who is not dedicated to monogamy for life so as to
aid grandchildren ought not procreate or parent.
A civic culture licenses parenting so as to lessen the
frequency of procreation without appreciation. That is to reduce the number of
babies destined to live never to be appreciated.
Law professors
https://lawliberty.org/book-review/misunderstanding-madison-and-the-right
To this civic citizen, Tal Fortgang, writes his own failure
to understand the history leading to U.S. intentions, yet repressed as they
are.
Fortgang refers to framers of the U.C. Constitution as
“founders,” a term that reaches back as far as the revisionist wants to go:
1776; 1763; 1692; 1619; 1492; any date but 1787. Then some of the framers expressed
opposition to change by not signing the draft U.S. Constitution. Fortgang
extols liberty rather than responsible human independence; self-governance
instead of public discipline; and arrogant James Madison, the religious tyrant.
Don’t get me wrong: I don’t object to deriding O’Leary’s political philosophy.
Fortgang wrote: “None other than James Madison explained
that the goal of the Constitution was “’to secure the public good and private
rights against the danger of such a [majority] faction, and at the same time to
preserve the spirit and the form of popular government.’ Democracy was a value,
but far from the central value of the republic.”
A fellow citizen who puts his or her mind to comprehension
may suspect Madison on discovery of “Memorial & Remonstrance,” June 20,
1785. Therein, Madison appeals to some citizens with diverse labels: Creator;
Governour of the Universe; the Universal Sovereign, God, Providence. Not
surprisingly, he excludes both Nature’s God and the Trinity. Madison arrogantly
claims my citizenship is lessened because I choose humility toward
whatever-God-is.
Fortgang misses the framer’s attempt to end
Anglo-Americanism and establish responsible human independence. “This
remarkable about-face is just the beginning of O’Leary’s sustained betrayal of
the founding . . . attempted defense of the Constitution collapses on itself.”
I think the founding was terminated on June 21, 1788, when the U.S.
Constitution was ratified.
“Liberty” dominated motives in three 17th-18th century
revolutions: the 1688 English revolution, the 1774 eastern seaboard revolution
from Anglo-American colonies to globally independent states, and the 1789
French Revolution. However, the 1787 U.S. Constitutional Convention was a
revision from governance of a states’ confederation to laws and institutions to
encourage public discipline for responsible human independence to the continuum
of living citizens. In “to ourselves and our Posterity,” we are the “ourselves”
to the coming generation. And, especially in 2020, we have learned that
“liberty” too often is taken as license for democratic anarchy (several
anarchisms in one chaos) when what
citizens need is self-discipline for responsible human independence.
The fact that this citizen owns an independent interpretation
of the preamble does not imply that the resulting principles do not proffer an
achievable better future. I think the writers in this forum are the best
candidates to improve my interpretation of the U.S. Preamble's proposition,
which today is: This U.S. citizen practices integrity, justice, peace,
strength, and prosperity “in order to” enjoy responsible human independence
among fellow inhabitants.
https://lawliberty.org/book-review/despair-in-a-decadent-republic
Despair from decadence in the republic does not imply a
decadent proposition. We seem to approach the abyss of democratic decadence and
may experience the climb to the intended republic. Freedom of religion may give
way to encouragement to develop integrity.
Comprehending a decline requires identification of the
standard. From its unique emergence, the U.S. produced a constitution with no
standards---only goals, institutions, and amendable distributed-authority.
These principles are expressed in the abstract preamble, authored in 1787.
The U.S. Preamble expresses two major thoughts, in my view
as follows. First, living citizens establish and maintain these laws and
institutions to develop the USA as a global nation. Second, we proffer a
citizen’s agreement to develop 5 public disciplines (integrity, justice, peace,
strength, and prosperity) “in order to” encourage responsible human
independence. Citizens practice and encourage discipline as a self-interest.
So far, political regimes interpret the preamble as secular
or areligious so as to preserve Anglo-American, Chapter XI Machiavellianism.
Since 1789, Congress has mimicked, by Anglo-American tradition, England’s
constitutional church dominance of Parliament. Congress preserves diverse
“freedom of religion” to mimic Parliament’s partnership with the Church of
England so as to pick the subjects pockets with political immunity.
U.S. citizens may be developing awareness of this
Anglo-American tyranny and exercising their usual resiliency and may defeat
democracy’s chaos in order to keep the republic. We’ll know by this fall.
Professor Yenor seems to defend dependency: “People seek to
have an irreversible achievement in the world, and this, for most, is done
through marriage and family life.” This is not born out by the Pew research:
https://www.pewresearch.org/topics/marriage-and-divorce/.
In my experience and observations, a male ought to
articulate family manhood before courting a woman for intimacy. In a civic
culture, a mature man and a mature woman mate for life and form a family that
considers their unit the preamble’s “ourselves to our Posterity” respecting the
family’s grandchildren and descendants beyond. Family monogamy approaches
fidelity into eternity. This principle (individual and family civic integrity)
is discernible in the U.S. Preamble but not in any church doctrine I know of.
Yenor asserts: “Political degradation is a source of human
degradation.” When Congress imposed “freedom of religion” in 1791, the dominant
politicians did so to repress human, individual power, energy, and authority
(HIPEA) to develop integrity rather than tolerate infidelity to self. Citizens
who reserve sufficient humility toward whatever-God-is are reluctant to submit
to coercion; for example, a pledge that includes the prayer “under God.”
Submission to coercion degrades human integrity.
The Lockean phrase
“the common good” hearkens to English precedent that American judges and
lawyers use to distract U.S. citizens from the civic, civil, and legal power of
the U.S. Preamble. Thereby, civic citizens hold local, state, and national
governments accountable to the preamble’s proposition and the-objective-truth
(based on ineluctable evidence). The U.S. Preamble proffers mutual,
comprehensive safety and security so that each individual may responsibly
pursue the good he or she perceives.
I think the republic has sunk into decadent “freedom of
religion.” Citizens need freedom and encouragement to develop integrity.
Posterity’s posterity may approach statutory justice, perhaps the intention of
whatever-God-is.
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.
No comments:
Post a Comment