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: This appreciative citizen practices the U.S. disciplines---integrity, justice,
peace, strength, and prosperity, "in order to” develop responsible
human-independence “to ourselves and our Posterity.” 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
Freedom to develop responsible human independence: not
liberty
During the last five years, I have struggled along with many
fellow citizens over the difference between “freedom” and “liberty.” For a
couple years, I have written phrases like “freedom-from oppression so as
to have the liberty-to responsibly pursue individual happiness
rather than brook the vision someone else has for you.”
Colin Woodard, journalist, in his 2011 book “American
Nations,” suggested (p. 54), in my paraphrase, that “freedom” is an
un-consignable human condition and “liberty” is licensed by civil authorities.
In 2019, we titled our “Responsible Human Liberty Day” our
celebration of June 21, 1788, when 9 of 12 states had ratified the 1787 U.S.
Constitution (but with the unfortunate intention to add a Bill of Rights). The
U.S. began operations on March 4, 1789 with 11 states in the Union.
In 2020, we re-titled our June 21 commemoration “Responsible
Human Independence Day.” We recognized that the 1688-1789 “liberties” and “solidarities”
were arbitrary licenses to draw fellow-citizens’ blood. The Alinsky-Marxist organizations
(AMO) license to disrupt, damage, injure, and murder since 1968, also convinced
us. When AMO arrives with egocentric “liberty” we want the independence to walk.
We were also encouraged by President Trump’s Constitution
Day celebration and speech as well as V.P. Pence’s speech. Soon, America may become
great at last.
Quora
https://www.quora.com/What-are-some-things-that-you-consider-evil-or-morally-wrong?
What are some things that you consider "evil" or
"morally wrong"? by Vanessa Cameron
I think it is at best ill advised to say to someone, without
due consideration and concord, “I will pray for you.”
For example, I have never doubted my origins and don’t doubt
my destiny. When I am in hospital, I trust my doctors and nurses. Some prayers
people prayed scared me, but not any more: I reformed from susceptibility to
impositions by un-trusting fellow citizens regarding what I need.
https://www.quora.com/What-is-an-experience-that-shaped-your-values-and-moral-formation-It-may-be-a-conversation-that-determined-anything-that-you-believe-has-determined-what-you-have-become?
What is an experience that shaped your values and moral formation?
It may be a conversation that determined anything that you believe has
determined what you have become. by GJ Mohillo
In my fifth decade, I cheated someone because they were
foreign and returning to their country with no recourse over such small offense. My moral failure remains a burden, because I cannot
find them to make amends.
Then, my fifth decade, I wanted to be so good that people
would ask me why and I would respond, “Because I have Jesus in my heart.” If
that did not appeal to them I would try to convert them. If unsuccessful, count
them not elected to trust Jesus: not their fault, but not my people.
A couple years later, my Sunday school class was studying
Bible passages that talk of Christian community, for example, 2 Corinthians
6:14-18 and Ephesians 4:1-16, and I was reflecting on my experiences. The
teacher said, “Phil, you are in deep thought. Share it with us.”
I answered, “I was considering what I think about
relations with neighbors. We should be good and wait for an opportunity to
credit Jesus for the goodness. Otherwise, our relationships with good neighbors
should not question their inspirations and motivations.”
The teacher turned to the class, and asked, “Does anyone have
anything to say about this tidbit of heresy?”
I was shocked! I did not return for 4 weeks. I decided to show
I could. I saw the teacher on the sidewalk and politely asked to speak with
him. I asked him to explain “heresy.” He responded, “Phil, I simply disagree
with you and want to leave it at that.”
Not too long after that, I dropped out of the church, and a
decade later realized I had dropped out of Christianity. Now, I feel I have
dropped out of religion altogether. I trust-in and commit-to
the-ineluctable-truth, whatever it is. For all I know, Jesus will judge me in
my afterdeath. But I doubt it.
I do not want other human beings to think as I do. Let them discover
their own way to manage civic, civil, legal, and private living in order to
responsibly pursue individual happiness with human integrity. (I trust my
parents and siblings are safe in their afterdeaths.)
I read the Bible as literature by ancient writers. I am
suspicious of all verses that promote hate between humans. I am especially wary
of John the Apostle, for example, John 15:18-23. And Luke 14:26, by the
physician.
I like to think the confusion I owned when I took advantage
of someone of high civic integrity yet religious belief different from mine is
reformed. My memory of him contributes to integrity in my eighth decade. Thank
you, sir, wherever you are, for drawing my attention to responsible human independence.
https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-difference-between-fake-and-false?
What is the difference between fake and false? by Praveen
Sharma
I think “fake” refers to psuedo-news. For example, a
reporter reporting a reporter’s opinion. The busy reader is to hurried to
notice, so the message is effective to them.
“False” refers to factual lies. For example, some reporters
thought the Pinto design invited gas-tank fires, so that fabricated one, filmed
it, and published their lie.
Some lies are so well entrenched in scholarship they are not
deemed lies, and the person who would say they are lies gets stonewalled (in
lieu of stoning).
For example, Abraham Lincoln, for political power rather
than personal integrity referred to 1776 as the founding of this nation.
However, 1776 marks the official declaration of independence from England by
the confederation of 13 states; formerly British colonies, representing only
13% of the country. The rest was under Spanish, French, or other colonial rule.
The most defensible date of the founding of the U.S. is
September 17, 1787, but the purpose that was proffered in the preamble to the
U.S. Constitution has been suppressed by Congress ever since.
The intended U.S. has yet to be established.
https://www.quora.com/Is-the-need-for-law-a-compromise-of-freedom?
Is the need for law a compromise of freedom? by Graham
C. Lindsay
Your suggestion comes 2 days after Colin Woodard,
journalist, in his 2011 book “American Nations,” suggested, in my paraphrase
(p. 54), that “freedom” is an un-consignable human condition and “liberty” is
licensed by civil authorities. It strengthens my assertion of “freedom-from”
oppression so as to empower the “liberty-to” responsibly pursue personal
happiness with civic integrity. It also strengthens my suggestion that
“liberty” in the U.S. Preamble’s proposition can be interpreted as “responsible
human independence.” Just a year ago, I was advocating “responsible human
liberty.”
About 2,400 years ago, Greeks suggested, again in my
interpretation, that ineluctably good citizens (IGC) neither initiate nor
tolerate harm to or from any person or society. Second, IGC behave for equity
under statutory justice. In other words, a chemical engineer like me need not
be treated like Elon Musk.
About 3,700 years
ago, a writer suggested that men and woman are charged with constraining chaos
on earth.
Since no culture coaches and encourages its youth to develop
human integrity, the faction of citizens who follow these principles are few.
There are a myriad of reasons for individual dissidence to human integrity,
many having to do with chronological maturity and, after adolescence,
psychological maturity. There’s also the horror of the malnutrition-bloated
child crying while a fly drinks from his or her eyelid.
Consequently, the good people legislate laws and fund
law-enforcement in order to promote freedom to the continuum of living
citizens. Dissidents live under civic liberties unless harm they are practicing
becomes known, in which their liberties may be constrained under developing
statutory justice.
Statutory justice empowers freedom.
https://www.quora.com/q/wonder/Can-you-make-up-a-new-term-to-give-your-personal-philosophy-a-name?
Can you make up a new term to give your personal philosophy a name?,
by Michelle Contreras Ewens
I work to develop human integrity. “Integrity” in my view has
two meanings: 1) reliability to physics and its progeny and 2) wholeness to
humankind. Humankind is charged to eventually constrain chaos, at least on
earth.
My first thought to name my personal philosophy is “reliable
wholeness.”
What do you think of it? Does it represent my published
intentions? I’ll keep thinking about it.
To Michelle Contreras Ewens:
I appreciate your first reaction to “reliable wholeness.”
It seems to
me “spirit” is a human construct and is therefore unreliable. To think about
“wholistic philosophy” I can more readily think on body-mind-person.
I understand
it takes about a quarter century for the body to build the judgement parts of
the brain. Also, it takes about a quarter-century for a newborn to acquire the
comprehension and intention to live a complete human life. Then, another
third-to-half-century to serve fellow-citizens and build wisdom. Then,
retirement-time to share wisdom, at least with grandchildren; learning from
them as the person approaches perfection of his or her unique person.
Nobody knows
anything about anybody’s afterdeath, so it is difficult to benefit from
“spirit.”
https://www.quora.com/unanswered/Natural-law-is-the-first-principle-of-morality-it-forbids-evil-and-commands-evil-mean?
I want to address the question:
If natural law determines good versus evil, how does it work?
Natural law is an erroneous-Western philosophical-surrogate
for physics and its progeny, the objects of discovery using the ineluctable
evidence. By “ineluctable” I mean evidence that exists and cannot be changed by
the researcher.
Scholars use “natural law” to suggest “reason” as a superior
approach to integrity. The scholarship began as sincere objection to changes in
the-objective-truth
as humankind invented new instruments of perception; continued research may
approach the-literal-truth. It is prudent to reserve commitment
to the-ineluctable-truth
because unimaginable improvements in perception may be invented. Integrity does
not yield to reason.
Consequently, ineluctably good people do not lie so as to
lessen misery and loss. That is to say, good people anticipate bad physics when
lies are told and don’t really think about rules. Physics and its progeny make
the truth so plain good people need no other guidance in the choices they make.
https://www.quora.com/Do-we-have-control-over-the-consequences-of-our-actions-What-are-we-responsible-for?
Do we have control over the consequences of our actions? What are we
responsible for?
We are responsible to constrain chaos in our choices and
behaviors.
https://www.quora.com/Would-there-be-less-crime-if-everyone-was-more-equal?
Would there be less crime if everyone was more equal?
By “equal” are you thinking more accomplished? . . . more
like Elon Musk, for example? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elon_Musk
https://www.quora.com/Why-do-people-demand-honesty-but-then-resent-it?
Why do people demand honesty but then resent it?
No culture I know of encourages and coaches its youth to
develop integrity rather than tolerate infidelity to their person.
Consequently, people do not articulate the insufficiency of honesty.
However, each human being has the individual power, the
individual energy, and the individual authority (HIPEA) to develop integrity,
and that potential is never quenched. If honesty perplexes them, they have not
yet discovered HIPEA and applied it to develop integrity.
https://www.quora.com/What-is-an-example-of-something-that-has-no-right-answer?
What is an example of something that has no “right” answer?
I don’t know.
I think “Why is there something instead of nothing” deserves
the response, “I doubt the question.”
I think “Will the sun come out tomorrow?” warrants, “No.”
I think “Was there something before the big bang?” warrants,
“Yes.”
I think “How do you know the grass is green?” warrants “By
measuring the wavelength of reflected light.”
I think “Is Santa Clause real?” warrants “Yes.”
I think “Does God exist?” warrants “We may learn when our
afterdeath arrives.”
I don’t know an answer to your question.
https://www.quora.com/I-am-struggling-to-understand-the-ethics-of-not-voting-in-an-election-Can-you-enlighten-me-on-this-matter?
I am struggling to understand the ethics of not voting in an
election. Can you enlighten me on this matter?
I see it as integrity-to-self-and-posterity more than
ethics.
Choosing not to vote when you can attempts to consign to
civic fellow citizens your civil destiny and that of your descendants
indefinitely. Neither fellow citizens, government, nor any other power will
usurp your responsibility.
If the reader takes the Bible as a culture’s collection of
ancient literature rather than trying to assign the ancient writers’ thoughts
to one of the Gods represented therein, they can practice free interpretation.
I paraphrase Genesis 1:27-28 as follows: The way things are, human beings, both
men and women, are charged to constrain chaos on earth. Individuals who do not
accept the human responsibility invite woe.
If any of the ancients wrote like that, I am not the first
to assert that humankind is solely responsible to constrain chaos.
https://www.quora.com/What-is-greater-good-characterized-by-Why-do-people-believe-in-the-greater-good-and-why-is-it-important-to-us?
What is greater good characterized by? Why do people believe in the
greater good, and why is it important to us?
It is important to recognize it as tyranny over the minds of
human beings.
Here’s one definition: “The benefit of the public, of more
people than oneself; that which is better and more correct”; https://www.yourdictionary.com/greater-good.
The opposite “more erroneous” is the most annoying subjectivity regarding political
correctness. “Greater good” is associated with utilitarianism, which has
origins before Jeremy Bentham (d. 1832), to whom the phrase is attributed.
In human perfection, utilitarianism is a lame surrogate to
dissuade the development of integrity. Integrity is the practice of accepting
and publically declaring you don’t know, when you don’t know. That is to say,
if you don’t know the-ineluctable-truth, you say so. If it’s essential, you
might add your awareness of undeniable evidence for the-objective-truth. And,
if you are aware, you might disclose proposed instruments for perception that
could improve comprehension of the-objective-truth. The human purpose is to
approach the-literal-truth. It seems prudent to reserve claims to “the-ineluctable-truth”
perchance new dimensions or perceptions may be discovered.
This is an arduous discipline that many people regard as too
much to allow them to thrive or survive in a short lifetime. Some never accept
that since they are a human being, integrity is in their self-interest. Its individual
development empowers the responsible human independence that can perfect his or
her unique person. I am not the first to suggest that each human can perfect
his or her person, and tolerating infidelity increases risks of early death.
To suggest what scholars have done to integrity can be
glimpsed by an ngram of related phrases from Google’s digitalized books. I
created such an ngram for the period 1800 until 2018, and found the following
information on relative frequency of usage:
Integrity 51.2
%
Honesty 19.5
National security 12.0
Common good 6.5
Religious freedom 3.4
Civil liberties 3.0
Greater good 2.4
Safety and security 1.9
In 1850,
relative uses were integrity 58.1%, honesty 34.7%, religious freedom 3.9%,
common good 2.9% and greater good 1.1%, a peak. The others were 0.4% or less.
Thus, from 1850 to 2018, scholars have lessened combined use of “integrity” and
“honesty” from 92.8% to 70.7% by writing about surrogate issues, among which
“greater good” is only a minor player.
Interestingly, the combination “common good” plus “greater
good” exceeded “religious freedom” in both 1850 and 2018, with 4% vs 3.9% then
8.9% vs 3.4%, respectively. In my view, “religious freedom” is another
distraction from civic integrity---integrity for living as well as responsible
doctrine for afterdeath.
Another
afterthought involves “liberty” and “freedom.” Liberty’s usage relative to
“integrity” was 550% peaking in 1814 and 106% in 2018. From its peak relative
usage of 13.6 in 1814, “liberty” fell off to 1.8 in 2018, an 87% decline.
During the same period, “freedom” increased from 5 to 6.2 relative to
“liberty,” a 24% increase. Diabolically, “liberty” means “license” managed by
the oligarchy rather than freedom under ineluctable evidence. The ngram study
suggests that scholars reflect the-objective-truth with proprietary phrases
that, so far, bemuse the people. I share this not to lessen the impact of my
study but to show its strengths to an open-minded researcher.
I conclude that “greater good” and its synonyms derive from
tyranny against civic integrity and public discipline. Elite scholars maintain
proprietary influences to keep the poor poor and the middle class large so that
the wealthy can maintain capitalism as consumerism. The wealthy receive enough
revenue to maintain public dependency in ways of living the consumers will
accept: poverty for the poor, middle-class for people who believe in liberty,
and homelessness for those who accept it. The people’s remedy is public
discipline in order to establish a culture of responsible human independence.
That culture is proposed in the proffered preamble to the
1787 U.S. Constitution. It’s in the purpose for terminating the confederation
of 13 former British-colonies who accepted global status as free and
independent states on January 14, 1784. In 1787, at least 9 states would form a
Union to be accountable to the disciplined people in their constitutional
states. Ratification occurred on June 21, 1788 with intentions for the First
Congress to partially restore English oppression with a Bill of Rights.
Unfortunately none of the 4 dissident states stepped forward and ratified
without the Bill of Rights: enough states might have ratified the 1787
Constitution.
Unfortunately, President Trump on September 17, 2020
announced a “1776 Commission” to prepare for the 250th anniversary
of the nation’s founding. I hope the President will accept my vote and my
message that the U.S. was founded on June 21, 1788 and operations began under
11 states on March 4, 1789: 1776 is the anniversary of the 1774 formation of
the USA as a confederation of 13 states rather than the Union of 11 states. The
First Amendment must be revised to remove Congressional tyranny: imposition of
“freedom of religion” when discipline to develop civic integrity is needed.
That would be a first step toward removing the “secular” stigma from the
preamble, which, in integrity, usurps neither the individual’s privacy in
inspirational/motivational/spiritual/religious pursuits nor their
un-consignable charge to constrain chaos.
https://www.quora.com/unanswered/Is-individualism-overrated-since-humans-are-social-Doesnt-this-impose-limits-on-individuality?
Is individualism overrated, since humans are social? Doesn't this
impose limits on individuality?
Humankind is charged with constraining chaos on earth. In
the continuum of living citizens there is a myriad of civilizations and the full
range of chronological ages in each civilization. As the cultures have evolved,
none coach their youth to develop the integrity to discourage infidelity much
less constrain chaos. Therefore, the individual who wants to develop civic
integrity for his or her living must practice responsible human independence.
Neither whatever-God-is nor government usurps the
individual’s responsibility to constrain chaos in his or her way of living.
https://www.quora.com/Is-moral-character-more-important-than-blind-adherence-to-rules?
Is moral character more important than blind adherence to rules?
Conformance to physics and its progeny (the objects of
research for discovery) is essential to integrity. The purpose is comprehensive
safety and security to humankind. For example, ineluctably good people do not
lie so as to lessen misery and loss.
https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-bigger-context-in-which-we-make-individual-decisions-Why?
What is the bigger context in which we make individual decisions?
Why?
As evolution has progressed, the human species is the only
one with languages and grammar by which to discover the-literal-truth (based on
the ineluctable evidence).
As a consequence, humankind is in charge of constraining
chaos on earth. Accepting this responsibility as an individual is the first
step toward developing human integrity rather than tolerating infidelity to
self-interest.
These principles have not emerged, because no culture has
encouraged and coached their youth to accept 1) being a unique human being and 2)
having the individual power, the individual energy, and the individual
authority (HIPEA) to develop integrity.
In such a culture, each individual is encouraged to consider
each choice as an opportunity to either accelerate his or her path toward perfecting
their unique person or an error that could lessen the ultimate outcome.
Tragically, due to preventable cultural neglect, humans who nurture infidelity
to their person risk dying young.
Why is a human being considered the sole holder of moral rights and
obligations?
Other species communicate, but only the human species has
developed languages (perhaps during the last 0.2 million years whereas
humanoids have been evolving for at least 3 million years.
Further, humankind developed grammar, which is essential to
research. By researching the ineluctable evidence, humankind discovers
the-objective-truth and how to benefit from the discovery. Further, humankind
invents new instruments for perception and thereby improves their comprehension
of the discovery and its good use. This process can lead to comprehension of
the-literal-truth yet with the caution that a new dimension may be discovered
that would require new instruments of perception.
Albert Einstein convinced me that (in my interpretation)
integrity and physics with it progeny follow the same laws. His only example is
that ineluctably good people do not lie so as to lessen misery and loss.
Thus, the essential human right is the opportunity to
develop integrity to physics et.al., and accepting that you are a human being
is an un-consignable obligation.
People who read the Bible as literature might perceive a
similar suggestion by an ancient thinker in Genesis 1:28.
https://www.quora.com/Do-you-agree-that-the-truth-will-set-you-free-only-if-you-are-ready-to-accept-it-That-the-truth-is-offensive-is-you-are-not-ready?
Do you agree that the truth will set you free only if you are ready
to accept it? That the truth is offensive [if] you are not ready?
No. As a human being, you have the individual power, the
individual energy, and the individual authority (HIPEA) to either tolerate
infidelity to yourself or develop integrity---responsible self-interest. People
who tolerate infidelity remain ready for falsehood. The truth is offensive to
the personal infidel.
https://www.quora.com/Do-you-agree-that-we-are-responsible-and-accountable-for-each-other-Explain?
Do you agree that we are responsible and accountable for each other?
Explain.
Yes. Accountable to each other and for each other. The human
being has the individual power, the individual energy, and the individual
authority (HIPEA) to develop either integrity or chaos in his or her life.
Collectively, humankind has the un-consignable
responsibility to constrain chaos. Therefore, the ineluctably good people must
constrain the dissidents and encourage them to reform. Some dissidents are so
inhuman they can be constrained only by termination.
https://www.quora.com/Do-you-agree-with-the-phrase-United-we-stand-divided-we-fall-Why-or-why-not?
Do you agree with the phrase “United we stand, divided we fall”? Why
or why not?
I agree with the phrase respecting only one society: the
people who practice mutual, comprehensive safety and security.
To my knowledge, no culture like that exists, but it is
offered in the proffered preamble to the U.S. Constitution. My interpretation
on the eve of Constitution Day, 2020, is:
This
appreciative citizen practices the U.S. disciplines---integrity,
justice, peace, strength, and prosperity, "in order to” develop
responsible human-independence “to ourselves and our Posterity.”
Under this agreement willing people constrain chaos in order
to empower themselves and fellow citizens to enjoy responsible pursuit of the
happiness they perceive rather than submit to someone else’s vision for them.
https://www.quora.com/What-moral-issues-are-involved-in-outsourcing-surrogacy?
What moral issues are involved in outsourcing surrogacy?
Humankind has the un-consignable responsibility to constrain
chaos.
Human life begins with a healthy oocyte and a healthy
spermatozoon, which are joined to form a zygote. The zygote is due the equity
and dignity of a human being. That is to say, mature adults attend to both
physical and psychological wellness, knowing they carry the potential to
generate and care for a human being for life.
Mature spouses bond in monogamy for life. Their bond
includes any progeny they might generate.
Fertility clinics and surrogacy services subject zygotes to
technological risks, whether the services generate profits or not. It seems
inconsistent with equity and dignity to subject human lives to added chaos.
https://www.quora.com/What-are-the-things-you-dont-trust-society-to-do?
What are the things you don't trust society to do?
Hold
legislators accountable to “the five disciplines---integrity,
justice, peace, strength, and prosperity, "in order to” develop
responsible human-independence “to ourselves and our Posterity.”
This
proposition for public discipline to achieve responsible independence is
tacitly offered in the preamble to the U.S. Constitution. I hope, write, speak
and LISTEN for reform.
https://www.quora.com/Would-you-agree-that-it-is-better-to-let-our-intuitions-override-a-rational-self?
Would you agree that it is better to let our intuitions override a
rational self?
No.
Both
intuition and reason yield to physics and its progeny, the objects of research.
This is not at all a new idea. However, it suggests serious consideration of
integrity as more reliable than honesty. Integrity is the practice of examining
heartfelt-concerns earnestly enough to discover the-objective-truth.
The
Scientific Revolution (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_Revolution) started an age of
sincere challenge to religion which by the seventeenth century resulted in the
claim that reason was more reliable than “nature,” a proprietary term for the
objects of research. During the early years of research, conclusions changed
relatively fast, because instruments for perception were being invented
rapidly.
For
example, impressions that the earth was flat changed with mathematical
modelling of orbits, then with the telescope, then with airplane travel, then
with orbital telescopes. The process of discovery starts with
the-objective-truth based on ineluctable evidence, improves with new
instruments of perception, and approaches if not reaches the-literal-truth.
There sometimes remains the possibility unexpected instruments of perception.
https://www.quora.com/Is-there-or-is-there-not-anything-objectively-right-or-wrong-that-is-independent-of-human-opinion?
Is there or is there not anything objectively right or wrong that is
independent of human opinion?
Neither
a deity nor a government will usurp humankind’s responsibility to constrain
chaos on earth. So far, no culture on earth teaches this principle to their
youth.
Consequently,
many adolescents do not accept that they are human individuals and
therefore take no concern much less responsibility for chaos in their behavior.
Consequently, they practice infidelity rather than self-interest. Many die
young.
The
mature human being accepted the individual power, the individual
energy, and the individual authority (HIPEA) to develop integrity to self; that
is, self-discipline. Consequently, he or she may perfect his or her unique
individual before dying.
https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-meaning-of-knowledge-is-the-only-key-to-ethical-behavior?
What is the meaning of “knowledge is the only key to ethical
behavior”?
I
suggest “discovery allows integrity.” Understanding discovery facilitates
ineluctably good behavior. The negative and positive journal of discovering the
ineluctable good is ethics.
Each
civilization, institutions, and societies develop proprietary rules that may,
often do, oppose ethics.
It
seems that quora.com and Wikipedia are two public forums for open-minded
journaling of ethics. Does anyone know of better platforms for open-mindedness?
https://www.quora.com/What-is-your-favorite-example-of-abuse-of-statistics?
What is your favorite example of abuse of statistics?
Gambling
odds after operations expenses. For example, 0.5% take to the house on 10% of
bets after expenses. That is to say, 90% of bets pay operating contracts,
lobbyists, and state revenue. Of course, I do not know the real data.
State
Legislatures approve gambling, long-since known as a vice, by lobbing for
education funding and other budget benefits. However, most of the revenues go
to the contracts required to support gambling.
Most
egregiously, gambling is an industry that keeps the poor poor, and the
legislators have the data. The idea is that the entrepreneurs get rich enough
to budget a little gambling and the state takes a big cut of the income the
poor has. The legislator comforts self with the idea, “I didn’t tell them to
gamble,” and “They would find ways to gamble anyway, so the state might as well
take a cut.”
https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-identity-of-a-human-being?
Quoting Abdul Mutallib,
“Do humans really have their own identity in this world?”
Mutallib’s
presentation of the question seems profound.
Viewed
from the ineluctable evidence, the feasibility of a human being begins with
healthy, unique gametes---an oocyte and a spermatozoon---which combine as a
zygote. The zygote has 46 chromosomes, 23 from each of the gametes. The steps
from conception to attachment, to gestation, to delivery, and to child-care do
not reduce the uniqueness of the newborn.
The
transition from newborn to human being is a matter of acceptances by the adolescent.
First, he or she must accept that they are a human being. It takes a
quarter century for a human to complete construction of their brain, and a few
more years to develop reliability. The person who does not choose to develop
reliability is likely to remain adolescent. Second, they must accept the individual
power, the individual energy, and the individual authority (HIEPA) to develop
either integrity or infidelity to self-interest. Either by choice or by
default, the person may nurture satisfaction of appetites, some of which invite
early death. The person who chooses to develop integrity makes certain human
mistakes do not become habits, and may accept the chance to
perfect his or her unique person. In perfect performance, he or she neither
initiates nor tolerates harm to or from any person. In perfection of a person,
there is no standard. Integrity dominated the choices they made in a unique
journey by a unique human being.
There’s
also the mystery of “soul,” which I do not study. The Abrahamic view of “soul”
is confusing because more than 3 branches each have sects. Also, many religious
views involve reincarnation. In some cases, the “soul” ultimately rejoins a
universal soul.
I
write to learn so invite comments. Thank you, Mr. Mutallib.
https://www.quora.com/No-matter-how-and-who-defines-a-successful-life-what-is-the-most-common-single-denominator-of-it?
No matter how and who defines a "successful life", what is
the most common (single) denominator of it?
The
person who develops the intellectual maturity to responsibly constrain chaos in their sphere of
influence seems successful.
https://www.quora.com/Is-there-a-definition-for-democracy-that-is-sensibly-elegant-excludes-immoral-acts-committed-by-large-groups-against-small-groups-and-includes-all-forms-of-popularly-understood-democratic-decision-making?
Is there a definition for democracy that is sensibly elegant,
excludes immoral acts committed by large groups against small groups, and
includes all forms of popularly understood democratic decision making?
Ineluctable
chaos.
https://www.quora.com/Why-cant-we-do-anything-we-like-with-our-freedom?
Why can't we do anything we like with our freedom?
Contrary
to what most civilizations teach their youth, no higher power, such as church,
or government, or their partnership will usurp your responsibility to constrain
chaos in your sphere of influence.
It’s
a matter of discoveries and acceptances: I am a human being; I have the
individual power, the individual energy, and the individual authority (HIPEA)
to develop integrity to my person rather than to tolerate infidelity to or from
any person or society; by accepting that I don’t know what I don’t know, I feel
confident that ineluctable evidence is sufficient to inform my goodness in a
confused and conflicted world; by appreciating fellow citizens as they are
where they are in their opportunity to perfect their unique person and sharing
ineluctable goodness without challenging their preferences, I may live in
freedom.
https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-essence-of-your-personal-identity?
What is the essence of your personal identity?
Phil
Beaver, member of the person-hood of humankind, citizen according to the
preamble to the U.S. Constitution, in a monogamy-for-life family with wife and
3 children, and developing responsible human independence.
https://www.quora.com/Why-is-self-considered-as-a-product-of-modern-discourse-that-is-historically-and-socially-imprisoned-by-what-is-acceptable-by-norms?
Why is self considered as a product of modern discourse that is
historically and socially imprisoned by what is acceptable by norms?
I’m not certain I understand the question, but will answer
as I perceive it.
Education Departments (ED) from K-12 through multiple PhD
programs pretend a monopoly on knowledge and protect themselves with
proprietary language like “common good” instead of integrity and “ethics”
instead of integrity and “unity” instead of integrity and “freedom” instead of
integrity and “faith” instead of integrity.
ED power is circular: they grant civil credentials and
recipients preserve the license those credentials empower. For example, while I
know more about the preamble to the U.S. Constitution than most officials know,
a local library will not allow me to lead a sponsored preamble-education
program. I, a Bachelor of Science chemical engineer, am self-educated on the
preamble. However, I recognize that historians interpret invents; I do not fear
interpreting the interpretations.
The second thought in the preamble, the people’s proposition,
ought to be interpreted by every citizen in order to manage his or her civic,
civil, legal, and private way of living. My interpretation today is: This appreciative citizen
practices the U.S. disciplines---integrity, justice, peace,
strength, and prosperity, "in order to” develop responsible
human-independence “to ourselves and our Posterity.” I share it hoping for criticism, so that I have the chance to improve it.
https://www.quora.com/Do-you-personally-agree-that-you-are-a-collectivist?
Do you personally agree that you are a collectivist?
I read the google paragraph with “A collectivist culture is
one that's based on valuing the needs of a group or a community over the
individual.”
I am more individualistic. However, I appreciate every human
being as they are where they are in their journey toward perfection of their
person.
Consequently, in my way of living and in my free work, I
learned to study two questions. First with so many wonderful people in the
world, why is there so much conflict? Second, what does it mean to be born in
the USA?
To the first question, I think humankind has not accepted
its assignment to constrain chaos on earth. Too many family-cultures inculcate
in their youth the perpetual dependency on a higher power, often a deity, or a
government, or a partnership of the two.
The U.S. citizen has the opportunity to discover their
proffered, people’s proposition: the public disciplines and responsible human
independence expressed in the preamble to the U.S. Constitution. It is in each
citizen’s self-interest to develop an interpretation of the proposition by
which to manage their civic, civil, legal, and private way of living.
More than 70 fellow citizens and foreign citizens helped me
develop my interpretation today, which I share, hoping for a suggestion I might
use to improve it: This appreciative citizen
practices the U.S. disciplines---integrity, justice, peace,
strength, and prosperity, "in order to” develop responsible
human-independence “to ourselves and our Posterity.”
The above sentence is collectivist with respect to a culture
of mutual, comprehensive safety and security in public in order to provide
freedom for individual preference in private. In other words, citizens
responsibly pursue their individual preferences rather than submit to the
happiness someone else envisions for them.
https://www.quora.com/Do-you-think-morality-is-a-learned-behavior-or-is-it-something-we-are-born-with-that-can-be-corrupted?
Do you think morality is a learned behavior or is it something we
are born with that can be corrupted?
I think it’s learned. For example, a newborn cannot possibly
understand that it takes two persons to “be in love.”
I don’t perceive “morality” specific enough and would like
to answer the question: is integrity a learned behavior or an instinct that can
be corrupted? More than “morality,” integrity addresses a standard against
which civilizations can be measured.
Considering humankind itself, perhaps 3 million years-old,
or about 200,000 years-old according to cultural stories we can relate to,
helps view the question from the individual viewpoint.
It seems clear that humankind works to comprehend physics
and its progeny then understand how to use it for ineluctable good. The good
citizen behaves for equity under ineluctable evidence. For example, a good
person earns the life-style they want. However, some citizens erroneously
perceive egocentric favor by taking advantage of others. Liberal thought posits
that every culture strives for majority, ineluctably good behavior. If so,
global integrity ought to be improving and acceptance of physics instead of
reason as the standard for excellence ought to evident.
The historical civilizations can be rated in terms of
acceptance of physics and its progeny as the standards for integrity. I did not
find a study, but found interest by global regions; https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2019/06/global-survey-finds-strong-support-scientists.
(BTW the article features an interesting graph of what-nations-think-they-know
vs their-score-on-a-test.) I’d need to comprehend the study bases to place much
confidence in the report. For example, what test was used to measure scientific
proficiency?
There are fewer wars and less severe wars, so it seems
humankind is learning integrity, both as wholeness and as conformity to physics.
Collective progress requires individual progress, so all that I have said so
far supports the idea that the individual human being learns to practice
integrity rather than inherits the practice through genes and memes.
Consider the behavioral experiences in a hypothetical human
lifetime. The newborn is totally uninformed—can neither walk nor utter many
words for the first year. Caretakers coach and encourage them to acquire
comprehension and intention during the first quarter century to live a complete
human lifetime. The young adult embarks on a career during which they apply,
during another quarter century or perhaps four decades, what they acquired. The
prudent person continues to learn. Finally, they retire for a few decades and
may share their successes/failures with their descendants. The human life is
more complete in both quality and duration when learning is focused on physics
and its progeny more than reason. The infant who was born to a physically
corrupt family is likely to be psychologically corrupt and to die early.
The prudent individual observes the collective factions
among humankind and manages their lifetime for responsible self-interest using
the ineluctable evidence to effect choices.
https://www.quora.com/How-does-anybody-win-when-one-sides-baseline-is-Youre-wrong-but-you-have-a-right-to-be-wrong-and-the-others-baseline-is-Youre-wrong-and-I-will-use-the-power-of-government-to-force-you-to-do-the-right-thing-How-can?
How does anybody win when one side's baseline is "You're wrong
but you have a right to be wrong" and the other's baseline is "You're
wrong and I will use the power of government to force you to do the right
thing"? How can that possibly end?
What celebration do you plan for Constitution Day, this
Thursday, September 17, 2020?
Fellow citizens can win---with reform to the proffered
preamble to the U.S. Constitution and its potential to control chaos under the
ineluctable evidence to actual-reality.
Neither humankind’s struggle to constrain chaos nor admission
that it is humankind’s non-consignable responsibility is new. The 2020 summer
of chaos and the Democratic Party’s policy of public crisis for vain promise to
control everything is a strategy to increase their power.
The ineluctably
good people of the U.S. can stop the loss of constraints on chaos by taking
bold action. Individuals must accept that they are human beings and therefore
responsible to constrain chaos in their sphere of control. Individual responsibility
has not happened, because the U.S. inherited from Great Britain the tradition
that a higher power will eventually relieve “ourselves” of personal concern for
the unknown future “our Posterity” faces. Leaving relief from chaos to higher
power is contradictory to the ineluctable
evidence: no higher power will usurp the individual’s responsibility to accept
being human and accept the power, energy, and authority humanity entails.
This proposal was abstractly proffered by the 39 of the 55
framers of the 1787 U.S. Constitution. Their 5 person committee of style
captured in the 52-word preamble the essence of the constitutional debate. The
preamble has two thoughts: 1) announcing the draft U.S. Constitution to be
ratified by 9 of the 12 states with delegates and the thirteenth, dissident,
state and 2) proffering the people’s proposition tacitly reached for signing on
September 17, 1787.
I studied the preamble, which I call “the U.S. Preamble,” to
comprehend if I want to be a U.S. citizen and how I want to develop my civic,
civil, legal, and private conduct according to my preferences I would happily
debate with fellow citizens. Over 70 people have, in library meetings and other
discussions, helped me develop my interpretation today: This appreciative citizen
practices the U.S. disciplines---integrity, justice, peace,
strength, and prosperity, "in order to” develop responsible
human-independence “to ourselves and our Posterity.”
Please read the original preamble to consider some
subtleties underlying my experiences and observations. First, the citizen
must want to comprehend the preamble before he or she can use it to manage
their civic, civil, legal, and private way of living. Nevertheless, the citizen
who neglects civic collaboration invites subjugation to law enforcement decided
by other citizens. Second, the notion that “the founding fathers” hold
sway in the continuing public debate is crushed by the objects of the
proposition: “to ourselves and our Posterity.” We are the twelfth generation after
1787s “ourselves” and the 2020 ourselves to the coming generation. No way will
we allow so-called founding fathers rule our children. Third, ratifying
the U.S. Preamble terminated the 13 states under the Confederation of States
and established a Union of states held accountable by the ineluctably good
people of their states and the USA---the citizens who accept responsible human
independence under the U.S. Preamble’s proposition. Fourth, “liberty”
is the text’s erroneous purpose, because humankind cannot escape the constraints
of physics and its progeny---each person must develop responsible human
independence. Therefore, the best a nation can provide is freedom from tyranny.
Fifth,
there are no standards for achieving either the disciplines or the purpose, and
thus, there is no usurpation of human responsibilities to self: Posterity’s posterity will discover how
successful the proposal will be. Religion is a private rather than civil human
interest. Sixth, there are no discriminations against gender or
responsible factional societies within humankind. Fellow citizens happily
segregate themselves based on individual preferences within physics’ limits
rather than submitting to someone else’s preferences for them.
However, fellow citizens who think crime, violence, tyranny,
and alien-ship pay invite constraint by the willing citizens: “We the
People of the United States in order to . . . .” Statutory law-enforcement
provisions are in the Articles of the U.S. Constitution.
Thursday is Constitution Day, 2020; https://www.loc.gov/law/help/commemorative-observations/constitution-day.php.
Unfortunately, Congress represses the U.S. Preamble as a secular sentence. Some
officials pretend that they need not conform to the U.S. Preamble. Fellow
citizens cannot accept their civic, civil, legal, and private powers to hold
public officials accountable unless they comprehend the sentence under which
“ourselves and our Posterity” assigns power to the officials.
Considering these insights and your use of the U.S. Preamble
might be an excellent way to celebrate Constitution Day on the eve of the 2020
elections, November 3.
To Anthony Bartoletti:
To meet “individual preferences within
physics’ limits” incorporates economic viability. If by “nice house” you mean
more house than a citizen can use, say a $100,000 million house, and the funds
to buy it came from a system that keeps the poor poor, the buyer integrates into
a society without responsible human independence. He or she maintains
infidelity to his or her person’s unique perfection by thinking “I’m just part
of the system.”
A couple examples ought to suffice. Say the
funds came from a lottery. Lotteries are approved by legislators who know
ticket sales keep the poor poor. Or say they came from shrewd development of a
popular music style. The system of contracts that supports that industry picks
the poor’s pockets. Similarly, the system of professional sports keeps the poor
poor. More egregiously, the exorbitant salaries and perks in the public sector
keep the poor poor. Exorbitant lawsuits and settlements keep the poor poor and
judges and lawyers rich. The church picks the poor’s pockets and legislators
grant tax deductions the poor can’t use.
In a culture under the U.S. Preamble’s
proposition, the poor join fellow citizens to hold government, especially
legislators, accountable to the people’s proposition, in my view: This appreciative citizen
practices the U.S. disciplines---integrity, justice, peace,
strength, and prosperity, "in order to” develop responsible
human-independence “to ourselves and our Posterity.”
To Donald Cook:
I checked Merriam-Webster Online re
ineluctable: “not to be avoided,
changed, or resisted: INEVITABLE;
an ineluctable fate.” Inevitable means “incapable of being avoided or
evaded.”
Fate can be changed or resisted. However, ineluctable fate
is fixed.
Ineluctably, the sun won’t come out tomorrow, but some
adults inevitably cling to perceptions.
Can Merriam-Webster help us want to communicate as fellow
citizens?
https://www.quora.com/What-do-you-think-of-the-Declaration-of-Rights-by-Percy-Bysshe-Shelley?
What do you think of the "Declaration of Rights" by Percy
Bysshe Shelley?
Shelley seemed to be leftist and utopia dreaming yet
brilliantly straining within British propriety. That is to say his creative
thought was constrained by British tradition.
Mr. Lindsay, I am rewarded by your thoughtful questions. In
this case, I’d like to know what you think of Shelley’s list (I wonder of
Eleanor Roosevelt was inspired). Also, why did you interest me in it? (Thank
you.)
My response to each of his “rights” follows, below.
Declaration of Rights. By Percy Bysshe Shelley. From the 1880 edition of The Works of Percy Bysshe Shelley in Verse
and Prose, edited by H.
Buxton Forman.
Rendering
opinion on Shelley’s item or by reference to my interpretation of the U.S.
Preamble’s proposition: This
appreciative citizen practices the U.S. public disciplines---integrity,
justice, peace, strength, and prosperity, "in order to” develop
responsible human-independence “to ourselves and our Posterity.” Phil Beaver, 9/13/2020.
DECLARATION
OF RIGHTS.
1
GOVERNMENT has no rights; it is a delegation from several individuals for the
purpose of securing their own. It is therefore just, only so far as it exists
by their consent, useful only so far as it operates to their well-being.
[PRB (typical format): This is the erroneous British “consent of
the governed” a Machiavellian tyranny. The U.S. Preamble tacitly allows
posterity to evolve toward journaling the discovery and enactment of statutory
justice---perfection of written law and its enforcement; by continual amendment
when injustice is discovered. Thereby conformance to physics and its progeny is
accepted by the ineluctably good people and encouraged to dissident fellow
citizens.]
2
IF these individuals think that the form of government which they, or their
forefathers constituted is ill adapted to produce their happiness, they have a
right to change it.
[However,
their rights are constrained by physics and its progeny. British government is
Chapter XI Machiavellian church-state-partnership. Thereby, government picks
the people’s pockets and they neither emigrate nor rebel, each family hoping
their God will eventually relieve their posterity of the misery and losses. By
virtue of voting for certain offices, they call it a democracy. The U.S.
guarantees each state a republican form of government, which lends itself to
appreciation of physics and its progeny.]
3
Governmnent is devised for the security of rights. The rights of man are
liberty, and all equal participation of the commonage of nature.
[Physics
and its progeny constrain liberty. Also, liberty as practiced from 1688 through
1789 was license to kill British, English, French, and American people.
Responsible human independence seems a better goal than liberty. Moreover, I
assert that man’s only right is the opportunity to develop integrity during his
or her lifetime. “Nature” is the seventeenth century British surrogate for physics
and its progeny. Because they did not understand research with continual
invention of new instruments of perception, they erroneously judged reason as
more reliable than physics. ]
4
As the benefit of the governed, is, or ought to be the origin of government, no
men can have any authority that does not expressly emanate from their will.
[Physics
and its progeny constrain human will. For example, the individual who wants to
fly must discover aerodynamics and/or jet propulsion and learn how to
efficiently use them. Government journals the path to discovery so that current
research benefits from the past, both negative and positive. Imagination is not
discarded merely because it did not apply in the temporal research. The human
being has the individual power, the individual energy, and the individual
authority (HIPEA) to develop and practice integrity. Unfortunately, some
persons use HIPEA for crime, despite the risks they accept. That is to say,
some people are willful criminals.]
5
Though all governments are not so bad as that of Turkey, yet none are so good
as they might be; the majority of every country have a right to perfect their
government, the minority should not disturb them, they ought to secede, and
form their own system in their own way.
[Perfection
of government by the people is incorporated in the U.S. Preamble’s proposition.
However, it recognizes that the next step toward perfection might come from a
minority group. The “ourselves and our Posterity” makes no discriminations. I
had not noticed this tacit feature before Shelley.
Secession
would preserve enmity. Physics and its progeny influence if not direct the
ineluctable good. Most human beings want mutual, comprehensive safety and
security (physics) so that each individual can pursue the happiness they
perceive rather than submit to someone else’s vision for them. In such a
culture, dissidents for whatever reason may be encouraged, coached, coerced,
and forced to reform or ultimately suffer constraint if not execution.
Secession is not beneficial.]
6
All have a right to an equal share in the benefits, and burdens of Government.
Any disabilities for opinion, imply by their existence, barefaced tyranny on
the side of government, ignorant slavishness on the side of the governed.
[Human
existence is insufficient. Each human being must accept development of his or
her person and civic citizenship. For example, civic citizens ought to earn the
responsible living style they want. Also, remuneration for work does not
involve the risks of entrepreneurship and can be used to build wealth by saving
and investing. Distribution of gross domestic product ought to be equitable
rather than equal. The citizen who has not developed a personal interpretation
of the U.S. Preamble’s proposition so as to manage his or her civic, civil,
legal, and personal living ought not be allowed to vote, even in local
elections.]
7
The rights of man in the present state of society, are only to be secured by
some degree of coercion to be exercised on their violator. The sufferer has a
right that the degree of coercion employed be as slight as possible.
[Favoring
the offender defeats justice, especially if the offender has not chosen to
develop his or her person and their civic citizenship. When there is an
offense, the victims are the offended citizen, the ineluctably good citizens
who pay for law enforcement, legislation, and other infrastructure, and
especially the first-responders who risk life and wellness to enforce the law.
Penalties for offenses ought to represent the cost of adjudication. Citizens
have a self-interest in making certain they are not accused of an offense.]
8
It may be considered as a plain proof of the hollowness of any proposition, if
power be used to enforce instead of reason to persuade its admission. Government
is never supported by fraud until it cannot be supported by reason.
[Deceit
is indeed a last resort for allowing a criminal to disclose their guilt.]
9
No man has a right to disturb the public peace, by personally resisting the
execution of a law however bad. He ought to acquiesce, using at the same time
the utmost powers of his reason, to promote its repeal.
[Socrates
died to defend unjust law enforcement, but his friends wanted to rebel.
Attractive
as this principle may be, political change, even in this great country
frequently involves public disturbance if not violence. Recall Shays’
rebellion, the Civil War over erroneous Christian beliefs, rescinding the 19th
amendment, women’s suffrage, and 1964 civil rights. I think adoption of the
U.S. Preamble’s proposition instead of preserving Anglo-American tradition
would lessen the urge for public disruption and violence.]
10
A man must have a right to act in a certain manner before it can be his duty.
He may, before he ought.
[This
principle addresses a provision of the U.S. Preamble I had not resolved until
perhaps now. The authors did nothing to urge citizens to read, much less
comprehend, much less interpret the preamble’s proposition. I have done that
and now hold its five disciplines and its purpose as my practice more than
intention.]
11
A man has a right to think as his reason directs, it is a duty he owes to
himself to think with freedom, that he may act from conviction.
[Seventeenth
century Europeans had decided that reason is more reliable than physics and its
progeny (“nature” to them). I prefer to say that a person has the right and
duty to practice integrity. Conviction is not possible in conflict with
physics. For example, the personal cost of gender change seems in conflict with
physics with what humankind has discovered to date.]
12
A man has a right to unrestricted liberty of discussion, falsehood is a
scorpion that will sting itself to death.
[Ineluctably
good people want liars to expose their practice so as to accelerate the liar’s
demise. However, when actual harm results, the liar should be penalized. Free
expression but responsibility for harm done (e.g., Louisiana Constitution)
needs the strength of penalties.]
13
A man has not only a right to express his thoughts, but it is his duty to do
so.
[I
agree.]
14
No law has a right to discourage the practice of truth. A man ought to speak
the truth on every occasion, a duty can never be criminal, what is not criminal
cannot be injurious.
[“Truth”
is insufficient. I use the-objective-truth to specify discovery with existing
instruments to perceive the ineluctable evidence. With perfect perception,
the-literal-truth is known. These expressions begin with the ineluctable
evidence and ought to end at the-ineluctable-truth. However, it seems prudent to
reserve humility toward an unimagined future instrument for perception. When a
person has not considered the-objective-truth, they have the duty to say, “I
don’t know.” It seems alright to continue with an opinion, but often, the
actual-reality “I don’t know” is sufficient.]
15
Law cannot make what is in its nature virtuous or innocent, to be criminal, any
more than it can make what is criminal to be innocent. Government cannot make a
law, it can only pronounce that which was the law before its organisation, viz.
the moral result of the imperishable relations of things.
[This
seems to address physics and its progeny for determination of “well-being” in
Item 1, above. However, Item 1 expresses the consent fallacy: physics does not
yield to consent. The ineluctable evidence shows that relations of things are
perishable through mutation and catastrophe.]
16
The present generation cannot bind their posterity. The few cannot promise for
the many.
[Nevertheless,
the U.S. has nearly $30 trillion public debt. I like: the 39 Constitution
signers in 1789 cannot promise for 330 million citizens in 2020. I especially
oppose homage to “the founders.”]
17
No man has a right to do an evil thing that good may come.
[This
seems a contradiction and waste of consideration until you consider the
domestic violence of 2020.]
18
Expediency is inadmissible in morals. Politics are only sound when conducted on
principles of morality. They are, in fact, the morals of nations.
[The
words “expediency” and “morals” dissuade the reader from “efficiency” and
“the-objective-truth”. The concerns raised here are covered in earlier items,
especially Item 4 and Item 7. Political power must be based on the ineluctable
evidence more than reason.]
19
Man has no right to kill his brother, it is no excuse that he does so in
uniform. He only adds the infamy of servitude to the crime of murder.
[Self-defense
is required by human integrity. A person or a nation develop strength for
defense and advertise their preparedness for attack. If attacked, they must
apply the advertised force or face annihilation. In other words, aggressors are
encouraged by weakness.]
20
Man, whatever be his country, has the same rights in one place as another, the
rights of universal citizenship.
[Consistent
with Item 10, a person who has not agreed to a country’s laws has no say in
their enforcement. Also, Item 5 had the minority secede to the majority, so
Shelley seems inconsistent to me.]
21
The government of a country ought to be perfectly indifferent to every opinion.
Religious differences, the bloodiest and most rancorous of all, spring from
partiality.
[It’s
good to point out that religion is opinion. However, Item 1, erroneously
specified consent of the people as the standard for government. Physics and its
progeny provide needed standards and our progeny may accept physics.]
22
A delegation of individuals, for the purpose of securing their rights, can have
no undelegated power of restraining the expression of their opinion.
[This
seems nonsense. Perhaps it expresses unrestricted freedom of expression, as in
Item 12.]
23
Belief is involuntary; nothing involuntary is meritorious or reprehensible. A
man ought not to be considered worse or better for his belief.
[This
seems nonsensical claim to predestination. Belief that contradicts physics is
arrogance.]
24
A Christian, a Deist, a Turk, and a Jew, have equal rights: they are men and
brethren.
[This
is too absolute. If a person’s religion inspires them to do harm, their rights
ought to be in jeopardy.]
25
If a person's religious ideas correspond not with your own, love him
nevertheless. How different would yours have been, had the chance of birth
placed you in Tartary or India!
[This
thought is OK, except love is overrated and sometime inappropriate. I prefer to
recommend appreciation. But not everyone participates in appreciation.]
26
Those who believe that Heaven is, what earth has been, a monopoly in the hands
of a favored few, would do well to reconsider their opinion: if they find that
it came from their priest or their grandmother, they could not do better than
reject it.
[Perhaps
he is opposing the British church-state partnership. I oppose Chapter XI
Machiavellianism.]
27
No man has a right to be respected for any other possessions, but those of
virtue and talents. Titles are tinsel, power a corruptor, glory a bubble, and
excessive wealth, a libel on its possessor.
[Respect
is not due unless there is appreciation. The phrase “excessive wealth” seems
inconsistent.]
28
No man has a right to monopolize more than he can enjoy; what the rich give to
the poor, whilst millions are starving, is not a perfect favour, but an
imperfect right.
[How
does “more than he can enjoy” differ from “excessive wealth”? I do not approve
of tax favor for philanthropy, because it is arbitrary redistribution of GDP.]
29
Every man has a right to a certain degree of leisure and liberty, because it is
his duty to attain a certain degree of knowledge. He may before he ought.
[The
sentence with “ought” is repeated in Item 10, and I don’t comprehend it’s use here.
Using some or all of leisure time to learn is a required for self-discipline.
In fact, I deem it duty more than leisure.]
30
Sobriety of body and mind is necessary to those who would be free, because,
without sobriety a high sense of philanthropy cannot actuate the heart, nor
cool and determined courage, execute its dictates.
[Sobriety
cannot be overemphasized, because a life can be lost in a moment. For a long
time, alcohol dominated my social life---was the attraction in social
situations. We made a lot to do over a glass of wine. I prefer ineluctably good
conversation.]
31
The only use of government is to repress the vices of man. If man were to day
sinless, to-morrow he would have a right to demand that government and all its
evils should cease.
[Government
is needed for infrastructure, unless a system of toll fees would prove
workable.]
https://www.quora.com/Why-is-it-important-to-decide-for-yourself-What-is-right-or-what-is-wrong?
Why is it important to decide for yourself? What is right, or what
is wrong?
The human being has the individual power, the individual
energy, and the individual authority (HIPEA) to develop the integrity to
constrain chaos in his or her sphere of influence. HIPEA cannot be consigned to
another person or society. Most people never accept being human, much less
using HIPEA to constrain chaos rather than to nurture appetites unto infidelity
to self.
Who are authorized to make laws and what are the sources of teaching
ethical values?
The people who agree to develop human equity under statutory
justice in order to constrain chaos in their location on earth assume the
individual power, the individual energy, and the individual authority (HIPEA)
to manage the collective legislation and law-enforcement required to effect the
constraints to the continuum of living citizens. On the agreement, the people
divide themselves: the ineluctably good and the dissidents who may reform.
Ineluctably good people practice integrity to
the-objective-truth. It derives from physics and its progeny, including
psychology. It exists, and humankind labors to discover it and how to
responsibly benefit from it. At any moment, humankind’s perception is limited
by invented instruments. As perception of the-objective-truth improves, it
approaches the-literal-truth. However, humankind cannot predict the next
instrument for perception, and therefore is reluctant to commit to
the-literal-truth as the-ineluctable-truth.
Integrity in considering the ineluctable evidence and
practicing the benefits defines ethics. The journal of the process constitutes
the guide to human integrity.
In order to practice integrity, the human being must have
freedom from both external and internal constraints. It seems obvious that
Google, Facebook, Twitter, and other popular media have political agenda.
Wikipedia is a journal by its readers and therefore has an element of freedom.
Quora.com stems from thoughtful, individual questions and the creatively
stimulated answers. If there are better sources, I’d like to try them.
Law professors
https://lawliberty.org/forum/stare-decisis-for-originalist-judges/
Readers like me are grateful to Professor Barnett for
sharing his analysis before being ready to do so. I want to suggest a more
complete viewpoint in time for his intention to publish. Originalist judges seem
unfaithful to the preamble to the U.S. Constitution.
Referring to “. . . a faithful judge has a duty to follow .
. . a superior authority . . . . Justices of the ‘supreme Court’ should be
striving to restore . . . the whole Constitution.” They should consider
themselves first fellow citizens under the preamble’s proposition.
These three thoughts, as I express them, call for reform to
the proffered preamble to the U.S. Constitution’s people’s proposition
according to the personal interpretation of each “faithful judge.”
I refer to the proposition---the stated purpose for creating
a written constitution for the USA---as “the U.S. Preamble.” I developed my
interpretation through dialogue with over 70 fellow citizens and foreigners,
who are named in my “appreciations” (on Bing, search ["A civic
people" + appreciations] and click on the first URL). I share my
interpretation to beg further improvement:
This
appreciative citizen practices the U.S. disciplines---integrity,
justice, peace, strength, and prosperity, "in order to” develop
responsible human-independence “to ourselves and our Posterity.”
By amending the 1787 Constitution to restore Anglo-American
church-state-partnership, the First Congress bemused the good people---“We the
People of the United States in order to . . . “---with “freedom of religion”
rather than freedom to develop integrity. The elitist power to accomplish this
tyranny against the people was led by former royalists who wanted to preserve
the power to keep the poor and middle class under control so as to profit from
consumerism.
The consequence is the chaos we observe today. The
Democratic Party calls us “we the people” and strives to increase the people’s
debt so as to help illegal immigrants, restore/reform civility to criminals,
and make “minorities” supreme dependents of the party elite. The Republican
Party wants to preserve the Anglo-American tradition so as to empower
entrepreneurs to encourage consumerism with enough power to sustain the poor
and middle class without misery and loss to the elites. As a consequence, our
grandchildren, the first generation of “our Posterity” face a national debt at
$26 trillion and 10% more in Congressional debate.
Physical separation from England was a global triumph that
lasted from September 17, 1787 until June 21, 1788 when 9 of 12 participating
states ratified the U.S. Constitution with plans for the First Congress to add
a Bill of Rights. The practical intention was to label the U.S. Preamble
“secular” and restore Anglo-American, Chapter XI Machiavellianism: let the
people hope and pray that their personal, family God will someday relieve them
of the tyranny they cannot articulate, because they are too busy trying to
survive.
Let today, the 233rd anniversary of the signing
of the U.S. Constitution be the day that widespread use of the U.S. Preamble is
adopted by the majority of “ourselves and our Posterity,” the continuum of
living citizens, who owe no more to “the founding fathers” than appreciation
for the ineluctable good and dedication not to repeat their mistakes. Let the
writers in this great forum lead the way.
Human integrity to living citizens seems the reason the 39
signers included provisions for the entity “We the People of the United States
in order to . . . “ to amend the articles. In 2020, the people need to amend
the First Amendment so as to promote the duty to develop integrity rather than
to preserve doctrine. Congress has weakened the people's routes to amendment,
but the people can accomplish it by holding Congresspersons faithfully
accountable to the U.S. Preamble.
Thank you Professor Barnett, and I hope this post motivates
you to publish more, hopefully in support of U.S. psychological independence
from colonial-British traditions, at last.
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