Has the U.S. republic fallen to democracy?

 

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 appreciation:  For discussion, I convert the preamble’s predicate phrases to nouns and paraphrase it for my interpretation of its proposal as follows We the People of the United States proffer & practice 5 public disciplines —- integrity, justice, peace, strength, and prosperity, “in order to” encourage & facilitate 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

I studied various government forms to answer a question about Voltaire. Consequently, I discovered that Google-books word frequencies show that “republic” declined to equal rising “democracy” in 1909, and the spread increased to a 5:1 “democracy” dominance in 2018.

Any American who thinks the rule of law is important needs to be engaged in U.S. politics for life rather than religion for afterdeath.

Quora

https://www.quora.com/How-well-does-the-Constitution-strike-a-balance-of-authority? by Nelson Vidinha

Briefly, the 1787 Constitution failed. We, the 2021 “ourselves and our Posterity” must clarify and restore its disciplines and intentions, denied by the 1791 Bill of Rights.

The framers did not make it clear that if the individual citizen does not engage in politics for life, informed fellow citizens would rule. Even my art representing the preamble --- We the People of the United States practice 5 disciplines: integrity, justice, peace, strength, and prosperity “in order to” encourage&facilitate responsible-human-independence (RHI) to “ourselves and our Posterity” --- does not dismiss “the founders”, as it should. The founders won independence and ought not be blamed for the framers failure.

Religion is not among the disciplines, because the framers recognized that the founders had separated church and state in the 1776 Declaration, in conformity to Genesis 1:26-28, a non-Adam, non-Abrahamic literature. The framers had not expected the 1789 French “Bloody Rebellion” --- evidence that “liberty” can mean license to let fellow-citizens’ blood. The framers could have clarified that “ourselves and our Posterity” is a continuum charged with continual improvement of statutory justice. That is, we, the 2021 “ourselves and our Posterity” owe nothing to the founders, framers, and signers. Our time for RHI has arrived.

The framers failed to manage the politics of ratification to prevent Tory politicians from re-establishing Anglo-American tradition. It seems James Madison was in John Locke’s pocket all along. Consequently, religion partnered with Congress and has bemused ourselves and our Posterity for 12 generations, so far.

We, the 2021 “ourselves and our Posterity” must&can amend the First Amendment to encourage&facilitate integrity rather than legalize religion in Congress, the Supreme Court, and the administration.

The balance-problem, due to the 1791 U.S. Constitution, is that “ourselves and our Posterity” of 2021 have joined European governments in the march to servitude. The U.S. republic has taken a back seat to “liberal democracy”: divergent chaos. It’s not at all too late for ourselves and our Posterity to reform.

https://www.quora.com/unanswered/Does-patriotism-conflict-with-humanism? by Daniel Butt

I don’t think so.

I just did a study of forms of government and ran upon “civic humanism”, a construct started in 1925, spun off from studies of Florentine-Italian-Renaissance; Civic Humanism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy). The idea is that the civic citizen is always involved in politics, always trying to increase justice, and everybody knows it and likes it.

I want to modify it to something like humble-humanism, so as not to conflict with the existing “civic humanism”, where “civic” refers to patriotism toward your location and its inhabitants. My use of “civic” refers to fellow-human beings who aid responsible-human-independence (RHI).

In a RHI culture, the individual acts responsibly to their person, in humble-integrity both to necessity and to justice with fellow-citizens. Each human being is unique and lives meaningfully only on the intention to perfect their person. Therefore, they must have the independence to pursue personal happiness, without causing injury to fellow-citizens.

In a RHI culture, only the-ineluctable-evidence can be used to weigh justice. “Ineluctable” means “not to be avoided, changed, or resisted”. The-ineluctable-evidence is disclosed by physics and its progeny --- mathematics, chemistry, and biology rather than by metaphysics: imagination, psychology, fiction, and religion. In a RHI culture, citizens accept that religion is a metaphysical topic that does not impact their civic/civil connections. Therefore, fellow-citizens can discuss religion without conflict. And they can discuss politics as accepted human-duty for living.

The most egregious injury I know is to question a civic-citizen’s motivation&inspiration. At the center of this potential injury are the labels “secular” and “religious”. They developed blindly out of humankind’s quandary over the cause of reality. Is reality’s cause the-God? Chaos? A singularity? Any cause is a mystery, so far. As best I can tell, “secular” means areligious, or without religion: it’s a circular notion the individual cannot weigh. What definition of religion is being used to discern areligion? Is there a secularism for each religion? Even the proud U.S. Supreme Court can’t define “religion”; how could they define “secular”? Both India and France have trouble administering their claims to secularism.

A decade and a half ago, I spent some time with secular-humanists and perceived the most closed-minded crowd I’d ever encountered. So, I was turned off to “humanism”. However, “civic” humanism, while secular according to Hans Baron is more to my liking. I want politics that accommodates if not appreciates my wife’s wonderful, reliable Louisiana-French-Catholic mystery (and that of any of our 3 children) and also does not hate me because I am not a Christian (see John 15:18-23).

In those days, one of our daughters attended the secular-humanist meetings when she could. Someone asked her if she believed in God, and her face showed angst. I asked if I could change the question, and the person agreed. Do you think you are humble? My daughter answered, with emphasis on ”I”, “I think I’m humble”, leaving the judgement elsewhere.

The-God informs me not to follow “hate” advocates --- areligious or religious.

https://www.quora.com/Is-prosperity-the-goal-of-humanity? by Daniel Butt

I think prosperity is a discipline.

In my view, the U.S. preamble proffers 5 public disciplines: integrity, justice, peace, strength and prosperity, all to encourage and facilitate responsible-human-independence “to ourselves and our Posterity” including legal immigrants.

https://www.quora.com/Does-society-go-through-a-period-of-confusion-just-before-the-point-where-people-begin-to-live-closer-to-their-actual-identities-And-is-this-happening-now-or-did-it-already-happen-in-the-1960s? by Andie Spez

Ms Spez, your question seems awesome to me. My mind went immediately to homo sapiens (wise) in place of “people”. Thereby, we’re contemplating perhaps the recent 5,000 years’ development during 300,000 years’ evolution. Also, we can imagine the next mutation of human-kind, perhaps homo integritas (integrity).

Briefly, 5,000 years ago, a political philosopher suggested, in our 2021 perspective: female&male-human-being must&can independently provide civic order&prosperity to the earth& inhabitants. About 2000 years later, a scribe recorded the suggestion as the-God’s commission. Subsequently, races, civilizations, and cultures continued to compete for the-God’s favor, under different names, creating chaos rather than order. In 2021, the chaos has become divergent.

Leap from 3,000 years ago to fifteenth-century Europe. The chaos maintained crusades with massive human misery and loss. England created a sort-of religious order in their 1689 Bill of Rights, requiring a Protestant-Christian monarchy. The Church of England has 26 constitutional seats in Parliament.

Factional-Christian persecution was one of the reasons some Europeans took the risk to be settlers in America, branded by England with the First Virginia Charter in 1607. (I have no idea the 2021 civic order England enjoys; the U.S. is in divergent chaos.)

In American colonization, Spain already had settlements west of the Mississippi and in Florida (1565). After England, Portugal, France, Scotland, Holland, Denmark, Sweden, Germany, and Russia joined. Many of the European settlers were escaping Christian persecution. They took scarce concern about abusing inhabitants and African slaves to colonize the land. Other Europeans didn’t know or care-about English law. Colonization came to an English crisis in the eastern-seaboard colonies north of Florida in 1763.

King George decided to tax the English colonies’ inhabitants, 16 colonies including those in today’s Canada. England would pay debts from wars with France. Loyal British colonists preferred Protestantism, so, on mutual sentiment, the French-influenced, Catholic-inclusive northernmost colonies did not join the 1774 Confederation of 13 states.

The 1774 uSA founders appealed to England for relief from taxation yet called for 13 state constitutions. They prepared a declaration of war for independence from England. The 1776 declaration separates church from state, claiming authority on “Nature’s God” rather than the English Trinity, and anticipating military providence from France and “the Supreme Judge of the world” regarding the intentions of “the good People of these Colonies”. France provided the strategy for victory at Yorktown, VA, in 1781. England signed the 1783 Treaty of Paris, naming the 13 free and independent states. However, the founders were unable to tax the states to pay war debts and function as a global power. In my opinions, 1) that ends the founding era and 2) the founders had civically conformed to Genesis 1:26-28, aware/not.

In 1787, framers met to establish domestic unity. They designed a federalism of states with the public informed&disciplined to hold their local and national government accountable. The framers’ experiences&observations informed them that they could not imagine how to manage the domestic future, so they made provisions for “ourselves and our Posterity” to amend the constitution according to the standards necessary for statutory justice. In addition to presenting the Constitution for the United States of America, their preamble lists the 5 public-disciplines and purpose, in my 2021 art: integrity, justice, peace, strength, and prosperity, “in order to” encourage&facilitate responsible-human-independence “to ourselves and our Posterity”. Religion is not among the disciplines:  The framers had reserved religion a pursuit for adult, personal-privacy. But they had not yet observed France’s 1789 evidence that “liberty” is often license to let fellow citizens’ blood.

The framers promised and the people ratified a republican form of government. Provisions in the articles spoil democracy, which increases chaos rather than enhances order. Many Americans know neither the history of republican forms of rule nor the intentions of the U.S. republic. Taking the best of history, a republic entails mutually-civic-citizens. By “civic” I mean reliable in human connections, especially family fidelity, more than obedient to a city’s rules. They not only understand the intentions of the 1787 U.S. Constitution, they have a personal comprehension by which they order and continually improve their civic lives. For example, I practice integrity, justice, peace, strength, and prosperity, “in order to” encourage dissident fellow-citizens to consider the benefits. I earn enough money to pay for a moderate life-style and bear the burden of constraining dependents --- fellow-citizens who prefer indolence, infidelity, crime, tyranny and other lifestyles that invite constraint --- and to pay for continual improvement of law-enforcement under statutory justice.

Meanwhile, the 12 or so generations since 1787 have allowed dissident fellow-citizens and foreigners to erode “republic” dominance over “democracy” in Google-book word frequency.

I feel the chaos. Do you? If so, act now to persuade fellow-citizens to restore the U.S. republic:  Revise the First Amendment to civic-integrity rather than civil-religion.

https://www.quora.com/unanswered/What-were-the-many-struggles-our-founding-fathers-faced-as-they-created-this-new-nation-and-how-you-think-they-should-have-handled-it? by Erika

I’ll try to be brief. I think the “founding fathers” end with Shays Rebellion in 1786. The founders had separated church and state, negotiated military providence from France to win independence, negotiated the1783 Treaty of Paris and ratified it in January 1784, but could not manage the states to pay the soldiers retired from the Continental Army nor have global sway as a confederation of 13 states.

Delegates from 12 states (one was a rebel) framed the 1787 Constitution, forming a nation as a federal-republic, held accountable by willing citizens under 5 public disciplines with standards to be discovered by “ourselves and our Posterity”. The 5 disciplines excluded religion, so as to protect personal-privacy in pursuit of happiness. Some delegates objected to the neglect of Protestantism, which was constitutionally required in England, with 26 Church seats in Parliament. Some delegates objected to sovereignty to the people rather than to the states. With those objections, personal problems, and other reasons only 39 of 55 delegates signed.

Some of the 16 non-signers were dissidents and led insistence on a Bill of Rights to mimic England’s 1689 document. Some were Tory subjects who had not the means to return to England after the war.

The consequence was restoration of colonial-American-English tradition in the 1791 Bill of Rights.

Human rights is a John Locke, English insistence he attributed to Locke-God, perhaps too arrogant to consider how the-God might react to Locke-God. Unfortunately, scholars debate Locke today, when they should dismiss his arrogance and restore the 1787 U.S. Constitutional influence instead of defending Anglo-American tradition.

None other than Frederick Douglas, in 1852, approved the 1787 Constitution as a document that, regardless of the 1787 intractability of emancipating the slaves, made preparation for emancipation when economics would allow it. In 1856 Bleeding Kansas, it became obvious that the non-slave states had broken into the majority: unless white Christians stopped the abolitionist movement, it was happening. Thus, the Civil War was a white-on-white Christian campaign over the more erroneous religious opinion.

During the subsequent waste of opportunity for the public discipline to hold local, state, and national government accountable to responsible-human-independence (the-God will not usurp humankind’s responsibility for peace), European political philosophers, naturally opposed to the U.S. promise to the world and even more ignorant to it than the typical U.S. citizen, have inverted 1787’s scholarly dominance of “republic” to “democracy” dominating beginning in 1919 and leaving “republic” behind in 2021.

Some of the problems you’d like to consider have been mentioned so far. However, there’s one problem I think is ruinous. The signers (not the framers) included a purpose in the preamble: 5 disciplines with standards to be discovered by “ourselves and our Posterity”. No living citizen can imagine the circumstance their posterity will face, let alone 12 generations hence. Thus, the sovereignty specified by the 1787 Constitution is the continuum: ourselves and our Posterity. As a consequence of that abstraction, Congress unconstitutionally partnered with religion, and the Supreme Court has affirmed the tyranny ever since.

The tragedy is the 2021 parents blithely spend for their satisfactions, wondering how their children will manage $28.74 trillion and growing. Some say, “At least I won’t be here to see it.” What if souls, whether in heaven or in hell can observe their descendants on earth?

There ought to be more humility toward the-God and less pride in “In God We Trust”.

It does not have to be that way. We, the “ourselves and our Posterity” of 2021 must&can amend the First Amendment so as to encourage&facilitate civic-integrity to fellow citizens instead of religion-dependency to Congress.

https://www.quora.com/How-do-you-explain-to-someone-that-people-have-the-right-to-believe-in-anyone-or-anything? by Petar Mikić

Try this approach.

First, 5,000 years ago, perhaps in Sumer, there emerged a political philosophy that suggests, in today’s comprehension of the world: female&male-human-being can and must constrain chaos on earth. There’s no racism, nationalism, genderism, or other human construct in that statement.

Constraining chaos is in the individual’s self-interest, but not every person will accept reality. Some prefer to depend on someone else. Therefore, the civic people must constrain the dependent fellow citizens until they grow tired of personal-chaos.

Since then, civilizations and cultures have tried to develop a higher power that will usurp the individual’s mutual obligation to constrain chaos. Voltaire wrote about dependency on higher power in Definitions. The consequence is that much of female&male-human-being is unfaithful to itself, and chaos became divergent.

Only the people who accept and practice responsible-human-independence succeed in their singular opportunity to prefect a unique person. They chose to believe in their humility, by which they develop their personal integrity. Spousal pairs who practice constraint in all things are particularly successful.

They don’t find self-discipline an impediment to their individually preferred happiness and never let someone else impose a different vision for them.

https://www.quora.com/How-should-we-define-morality? by Fiza Mustafa

I think we should discover the-ineluctable-truth and responsibly apply it. By “responsibly”, I mean so as to neither initiate nor accommodate injury to or from any person or association, including self and family. By “ineluctable” I mean “not to be avoided, changed, or avoided”, merriam-webster.com’s opinion. For example, if you are in jeopardy with other people including your family and family are all you can care for, you instruct the strongest of the other people how you are saving your family as you take action. For example, at the beach with a tsunami warning “People, we’re going to run for higher ground. Grab some water and join us.”

Most of the-ineluctable-truth is yet to be discovered, so when you don’t know, you say “I don’t know.” If circumstances allow no action, “I don’t know” is required. However, if action must be taken, follow “I don’t know” with “Here’s what I think [the rest of the thought]” and listen for a better suggestion. After deliberation, consent on an action.

Consider this dialogue:

Do you think we should invade Iraq?

I don’t know: Saddam Hussein’s big surprise might be: there are no weapons of mass destruction; I think we should wait for more intelligence.

I think Hussein is just stalling.

What if my guess is correct? You’ll be the invader --- look like the aggressor.

I’ll take that risk.

The overall guidance is act only on necessity and in necessity choose justice. In the deliberation, only physics and its progeny should be considered: there’s no place for metaphysics.

https://www.quora.com/Initial-communication-always-has-a-purpose-before-speaking-The-first-law-is-you-must-know-what-you-are-communicating-for-What-do-you-want? by Felgabriel Japinan

Let me share a 20-year journey.

I want to convince at least 2/3 of U.S. citizens --- 2/3 of we, the 2021 “ourselves and our Posterity”, to amend the First Amendment so as to encourage&facilitate civic integrity rather than disparage religious-privacy.

I have advocated this change for 2 decades through civic writing, individual discussion, and open meetings at public libraries, churches, and universities. I learned that many Americans think the U.S. is a Christian nation. Therefore, I changed my initial approach from the First Amendment revision (from civil religion to civic integrity) to a discussion of the history leading to each the framed&signed 1787 draft U.S. Constitution, the 1788 provisional 9-states ratification, and the 1791 amendment by a 14-states Congress.

Library-presentations in each of seven years informed me that the political proposal that is proffered in the 1787 U.S. Constitution is neither comprehended nor accepted by the elite citizens, who are confident they can govern despite the rule of law. Most fellow citizens accommodate this domestic tyranny by not recalling the 1787 proposal much less owning a personal interpretation.

There are 3 provisions that a civic-citizen ought to comprehend in the abstract, interpret for personal-practice, and publicly share in order to to learn possible improvements from the experiences and observations of fellow-citizens: 1) the Constitution guarantees a federal-republic, 2) it provides for constitutional-amendment by the people in their states and 3) the preamble states the intentions of the federal republic. The preamble needs more discussion.

The preamble has 2 sentences: presentation of the Constitution by the We the People of the United States who agree with it, and a contractual proposal: “in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity”. Literally, We the People of the United States comprehend and practice these disciplines. However, only the willing human-being self-disciplines, so many fellow-citizens neither accept nor practice the 1787 contract.

Today, my interpretation of the proposal, as I practice it follows: we civic citizens practice integrity, justice, peace, strength, and prosperity “in order to” encourage&facilitate responsible-human-independence “to ourselves and our Posterity”. Note that neither my art nor the original preamble includes religion in the disciplines. I change “liberty” to “independence”, because France’s 1789 “bloody revolution” informed the world that fellow-citizens too often take the license to let fellow-citizens’ blood. Also, Democrat-run cities in the U.S. summer of 2020 taught that mob-liberty libels their soldiers, ruins property. Injures innocents, and kills innocent citizens. Finally, the preamble suggests no standards, leaving it to posterity to discover and enact statutory justice.

Obviously, these ideas are a shock to a people with domestic pride in “freedom of religion”. Even though integrity seems essential to most everyone, most individuals take it for granted --- don’t really know how to practice it. (First, say “I don’t know” when that is so.) Therefore, my complicated review of global history leading to the 1787 U.S. Constitution, essential as it may be, is an encumbrance&imposition to most listeners. Trying to survive the way they’ve been surviving leaves no time to consider what the 1787 framers’ intentions might mean after 12 generations of “ourselves and our Posterity”: how can I use the 1787 preamble to discipline my way of living? What does civic-integrity mean?

Nevertheless, when I can, I present this story, hope for clarifying questions and admonishment, hoping for an appreciative suggestion for improvement, either in the content or the presentation. This is my time to listen-well.

Then I finish with the reminder: Don’t forget to do all you can to consider your opinion and perhaps approach fellow-citizens with your story about amending the First Amendment so as to encourage&facilitate civic integrity, leaving religion to personal-privacy.

https://www.quora.com/What-is-one-regret-old-people-always-have?

As a young adult, I beneficially decided that “skin flicks” were too much for me, so joined the poker game in the back room at the annual workers party at False River. That was good and stuck with me.

I’d didn’t realize that I was being a prude when visions of a husband assisting his wife’s bath came my way and I thought ill of it. See https://www.youtube. com/watch?v=NGorjBVag0I at 4:40. Now, I call my attitude “heterophobia”: male fear of a woman. Responsible appreciation is an awesome task. Not only that, her body can generate a crowd of about 400 viable ova during her fertile years.

Recently, my wife has required medical-assistance, and as her primary care taker the dermatologist suggested I use Aquaphor to keep her skin from “flaking”. I learned to apply it and experienced the greatest rewards as her calm gaze seemed to express gratitude and her skin became silky again.

The young man who learns to so care for his wife, for appreciation, rather than for arousal is fortunate indeed. Appreciation precedes&sustains love.

 

https://www.quora.com/What-if-anything-does-society-owe-its-members-and-more-importantly-why/answer/Phil-Beaver-1? Comment by D. J. Elliott, original questioner

Mr. Elliott, I appreciate your upvote and moreover your appreciative suggestions. I try to write using what I call civic-language: language that appeals to a civic-persons’ experiences&observations, without questioning their private-hopes&comforts. By “civic” I mean humble to human interactions more than to civil rules/ethics.

Let me clarify 3 subtleties in my post.

First, “truth” as used by the scholars is fungible, so I write “the-ineluctable-truth” to be specific to physics rather than to metaphysics. Two accepted usages of “ineluctable” are: “not to be avoided, changed, or resisted” (merriam-webster.com, MW) and “Unable to be resisted or avoided; inescapable” (lexico.com, Oxford). I choose MW.

By “physics” I mean physics and its progeny: mathematics, weak and strong waves, the chemistries (cosmic, inorganic, organic), biology, psychology, imagination, fiction, indeed everything that exists or existed; fiction is often the product of imagining physics’ unknowns.

Metaphysics is a product of human-responsibility carried too far: when research has not accomplished discovery, some people try to reason rather than to discover. For example, John Locke reasoned that every human-being is a property of God and therefore equal and, consequently, have the right to protect God’s property, especially themselves. I will not again turn my back on the-God to praise Locke-God. The USA founding-fathers (1774) disagreed with the Englishman and changed his phrase “life, liberty, and property” to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”. The founders, in justice, defended personal-privacy regarding “spirituality”. (After the Bloody Revolution of 1789, we know that “liberty” often means license to murder fellow-citizens, so we, the 2021 “ourselves and our Posterity” are obligated to replace “liberty” with “responsible-human-independence”, RHI, or better.) My friend Christopher Nalepa, commented, in effect, that the scholars practice “truth” as a process more than as an end; my view is that the end, the-ineluctable-truth, exists and sophists, intentionally or not, try to obfuscate it. Religion is an erroneous attempt to change physics to metaphysics.

Second, it seems obvious that society is comprised of individuals: not so obvious is that there is no higher power that can force the individual human-being to practice RHI. Military or police might can constrain a nation but not its individual citizens. I think that’s why the U.S. is proffered on public discipline of by and for the individual citizen. So far, the people have neglected RHI to hold representatives accountable.

Sophists who imagine&promote a utopia decelerate humankind’s path to RHI. The human-being who survives the first quarter-century may acquire comprehension&intention to develop a complete human-being. And then accept the individual power, the individual energy, and the individual authority (HIPEA) to develop RHI. If not, they will accept/nurture civil dependency: indolence, religious fundamentalism, crime, tyranny, evil, and worse. RHI requires humble-integrity.

The individuals who choose dependency are still human-beings and need encouragement&facilitation to reform to humble-integrity. The RHI individuals must aid law-enforcement and research toward statutory justice: continual discoverty&reform of unjust-laws. The process seems like capitalism: the individual must earn living-wellness, including provisions for retirement, and pay taxes for collective-RHI that constrains arbitrary human-dependency. By living-wellness I mean taking personal responsibility for Maslow’s hierarchy of human-needs or better.

Neither the-God nor government has the power to coerce or force a human-being to choose RHI. In summary regarding individuals and society, the fellow-citizen has the power to accept 3 realities: 1) being a human-being requires responsibility rather than dependency, 2) the responsibility includes practicing, encouraging, and facilitating the humble-integrity that is required for RHI, and 3) since only the individual can choose RHI, society cannot achieve RHI without a majority who personally reject any of the civil dependencies.

Third, society is not inculcating these principles in its youth, adolescents, and adults. The entity We the People of the United States accommodates socialist if not communist promotions like “Together we determined that a modern economy requires . . . schools and colleges to train our workers”, President Barack Obama, second inaugural address. Human-beings are not objects for labor. Local, state, and national education departments must reform in order to encourage&support students to comprehend human responsibly in self-interest, HIPEA, humble-integrity, and RHI. With these concepts, most individual students will take charge of acquiring the comprehension&intention to make the most of their singularity: a one-time opportunity to develop, perhaps perfect, a unique person.

That completes elaboration on my first post, and I’d like to address some of your direct concerns.

“Speculatively, this might include guarantees against various forms of deprivation.” Absolutely so. For example, we, the 2021 “ourselves and our Posterity” must change the First Amendment so as to encourage&facilitate civic humble-integrity rather than civil religious-pride. We must address racism with humble-integrity rather than skin-color. We must end philanthropy, which is used to impose personal metaphysics, too often proven wrong when physics’ corrections become evident. We must end manipulation of capitalism so as to tax the middle to empower the poor to consume, all to entitle the wealthy. The possibilities for an achievable better future with RHI are wonderful.

And “a kind of putative contract between “both sides” as it were - the individual on one, society on the other”. Maybe so. I’ve been looking at it more like an RHI-culture within which the civic-citizen accepts that some persons will choose not to be a human-being; choose a lifestyle more like animal, plant, mineral, or soul. Such choices must be constrained when injury occurs, and the constraint is accompanied by encouragement&facilitation toward the self-benefiting reform to RHI. In a sense, the development of statutory justice is the social contract, with the RHI citizen aware that they are paying the bill. This may seem impossible now, but that’s because these principles have never been inculcated in any nation’s youth; the U.S. proposed it in 1787, and 39 of 55 framers signed it. Unfortunately, some Tory inhabitants never returned to England. That’s right: I think the 1787 U.S. Constitution opposes Anglo-American tradition.

And “conferred greater status on the validity of the demands made by “the individual”. The failure of the 1787 U.S. Constitution in the hands of the U.S. Congress and Supreme Court seems ineluctable-evidence that government will not usurp the individual’s RHI. Only when 2/3 of citizens are developing the humble-integrity required for RHI will voting reform be effected so as to hold individuals in local, state, and national governments accountable to RHI. Stated that way, it seems a circular accountability of by and for the people. Too bad Abraham Lincoln did not think “discipline” rather than “government” for his Gettysburg address.

Yes, there is something “about the nature of the sort of relationship [that seems] tenable.” Necessity&justice motivate civic-individuals to take responsibility for personal-survival. The laws of physics must&can be addressed; we’re now on schedule to place explorers on Mars (in the former “heavens”). More personally, before August 29, 2021, my family of 4 in Baton Rouge Louisiana prepared for hurricane affects as severe as Gustav, September 1, 2008. We boarded up the door behind the den, where my wounded wife stays in a hospital bed, provided backup power for her suction pump, and lamented that the generator ordered last April is still on order (she must have 71 Fahrenheit). We had an arborist hurricane-ready our trees last spring ($5000 expense). Two extended family members joined us for the event, afraid trees like those that came down in 2008 might land on their house. In the same way, we never lie, knowing that physics eventually discloses the-ineluctable-evidence. For example, Saddam Hussein meant it when he taunted President Bush II:  Come on. Invade Iraq. You’ll find a big surprise. (No weapons of mass distruction.)

RHI is in the individual’s best interest, and the individual must take the time to vote for RHI individuals. (Confirmed dependents must be constrained from voting.)

I appreciate your time and hope these comments help our dialogue for the-good.

https://www.quora.com/Does-innovation-and-culture-really-relate-to-each-other-In-what-ways-can-they-be-interrelated-What-are-the-evidence-or-scenarios-as-to-where-this-can-be-observed? by Kn Sanchez

The myth of a flat earth, while debunked by the Greeks 2500 years ago (https://en.wikipedia. org/wiki/Myth_of_the_flat_Earth), constrained global exploration until 793 AD, when Vikings invaded England (“Vikings” were non-Christian and from Norway, Denmark, and Sweden). In 986 Vikings reached N. America from Greenland, sailing on innovative “longships” (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viking_Age).

The Vikings, responding to physics rather than metaphysics were motivated to invent ships they could rely on in North Atlantic exploration. Their ship-innovation and developing-confidence in sailing into the horizon changed the world. Vikings accelerated overcoming the 1700 years’ flat-earth-metaphysics and opened a culture of discovery and global-trade.

https://www.quora.com/Voltaire-said-It-is-dangerous-to-be-right-when-the-government-is-wrong-Does-this-quote-have-any-meaning-in-a-liberal-democracy-was-he-just-referring-to-autocracies? by Graham C Lindsay

Thank you, Mr. Lindsay. Working to address you question taught me many ideas. My 54 years as a chemical engineer impress me that professional error/omission may cause injury to innocent people: metaphysics gets no consideration. The principle applies to civic-citizenship: lies get exposed in human-loss&misery.

Civic-integrity isn’t easy.

I doubt Voltaire ever read or wrote the phrase “liberal democracy”. It seems synonymous with elective-chaos or distributed abyss-diving. I searched John Locke’s Two Treatises; Machiavelli’s “Prince” and “Discourses”; Thomas Paine’s “Age of Reason” and “Common Sense”; and Voltaire’s “Dictionary” and did not find the phrase or anything close. It seems a modern proposal with positive-purpose I cannot fathom.

Negative first impression

I understand Voltaire extoled reason in “science”, which cannot possibly correct research in physics. Perhaps he was a deist, yet he belittled metaphysics, a contradiction. He agreed with Locke and disagreed with Machiavelli. Although brilliant in sarcasm&entertainment, Voltaire seems of minor interest, because reason about theism distracts brilliant minds from research on the facts: the theist’s potential to appreciate physics yields to metaphysics. See Michael Polyani’s “Personal Knowledge”, the last page, for an example of institutional folly. (I remind the reader: I write my opinion.)

Fascinated by Pilot’s failure to wait for Jesus’s truth, Voltaire writes “Humanly speaking, let us define truth, while waiting for a better definition, as—"a statement of the facts as they are” leaving open how we are to discover the facts. I’m reminded of an Einstein-syntax:  Physics without research exists: metaphysics with research ruins. In other words, the human-being benefits from accepting the laws of physics and responsibly using them, without attempting to specify&bargain-with an intelligent designer.

Pertinent definitions

If there are no objections, I added “republic”, “democracy”, and other governance forms to aid my deliberation. Also, I have no idea what Voltaire meant by “be right”. I assume it means to practice humble-integrity, which no government does; giving the benefit of the doubt to hope a private-theist might (most theists neglect the-God, whatever it may be).

Not that a dictionary, including Oxford’s, is more than a temporal-usage opinion:  For “liberal democracy”  https://www.lexico. com, under “U.S. English” offers “A democratic system of government in which individual rights and freedoms are officially recognized and protected, and the exercise of political power is limited by the rule of law”; for “autocracy”, “A system of government by one person with absolute power”; for “republic”, “A state in which supreme power is held by the people and their elected representatives, and which has an elected or nominated president rather than a monarch”; for “democracy”, “A system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives.”; for “principality”, “A state ruled by a prince”; for “oligarchy”, “A small group of people having control of a country, organization, or institution”; for “socialism”, “A political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole”; and for “social democracy”, “A socialist system of government achieved by democratic means”.

After practically agreeing with Oxford on “republic-a.” merriam-webster.com adds “republic –b.”, “a government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to them and governing according to law”.

My concerns follow. How does a liberal democracy address the citizen who claims the right to know mathematics, or to vote against statutory justice? An autocrat who acts for responsible-physics is good but death is inevitable. Some republics proffer domestic discipline, in order to develop statutory justice among willing individuals; some spoil democracy in order to aid statutory justice. Democracy is ruinous when everyone agrees to jump into the abyss. Principality and oligarchy are like autocracy: responsible agents face death.

My undertaking to appreciate your question

In review, I’m contemplating Voltaire-danger to express humble-integrity in each of liberal-democracy, autocracy, republic, democracy, principality, and more. Neither definition of “republic” suffices for the 1787 U.S. intentions. Therefore, I modify the MW version for my use:   a constitutional government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens licensed to vote in actual self-interest and is exercised by elected officers and representatives held accountable by voters and governing according to the-ineluctable-evidence”.

Because U.S. citizens have, since 1787, neglected their opportunity for independence, the U.S. currently operates as an oligarchy: a small group, including foreigners, presents candidates for election; perhaps excepting President Donald Trump, under whom anyone could be fired. Europeans wish the U.S. would become a liberal democracy, and we see the affect in the divergent chaos in this part of the world. The U.S. is a republic, despite the current divergence into socialism.

Word frequencies from “Google books”

I wish I could share the ngrams I reviewed, graphically, but don’t know how, so my descriptions will have to suffice. Readers can reproduce them at https://books.google.com/ngrams, listing the words and phrases included below, each separated by comma. Many numbers are very low, and I normalize them to the maximum number found as 100.

With "republic" at .00404% Google-book frequency in 1800 as 100, autocracy, democracy, and liberal democracy were at 0.1, 9.2, and 0, respectively. Monarchy was at 46. Oligarchy was at 1.6 and grew modestly to 1.9 and 2.1 in 1942 and 2018. Socialism, communism, and theocracy were at 0.1 to 0.6. In 1942, "democracy" peaked at 96 at the expense of republic and monarchy, dropping to 15 and 8, respectively; socialism and communism greatly increased, to 10.7 and 7.5, respectively. In 2018, "democracy" declined to 71.5 with socialism, monarchy, communism, and liberal democracy gaining to 14.5, 12.8, 10.5, and 2.1; republic held steady at 14.8. Republic practically flattens after 1942, excepting a small peak in 1992. "Liberal democracy" departs from 10 zeroes in 1808, leaves the abscises after 1900, ramps up a little from 1931 to 1940, rapidly increases from 1982 with a peak in 2005 then valley in 2011 resuming the rapid increase to 2.1 in 2018, compared to “democracy” at 71.5. “Social democracy” rises fairly steadily from 0 in 1866 until 1.1 in 2018.

There are some key dates in these ngrams. In 1808, Napoleon invaded Spain, Russia annexed Finland, and James Madison was elected President, the year before, first steamboat trip. In 1817 James Monroe was sworn in as President; the year before, Europe suffered crop failures and famine. In 1866, recovery from the U.S. Civil War began. In 1907 Einstein began to apply his theory of relativity, the year before, Pentecostalism lunched, San Francisco fire. In 1909 England started old-age pension and Model-T Ford impacted the West. In 1942, WWII was on. In 1992 Bill Clinton was elected U.S. President; the year before, the 1^st Gulf War started, Gorbachev resigned, and Clarence Thomas was affirmed by the Senate.  In 2005, Abbas replaced Arafat, Powell gave way to Rice, Kyoto protocol without the U.S., and Spain, Belgium and Netherlands allow same-sex-marriage; the years before, Spirit and Opportunity land on Mars.  In 2011, Arab spring, Osama bin Laden killed, Gadhafi killed, Japan’s tsunami; the year before, Obamacare approved, BP oil spill. I’d love a historian’s comments on the ngrams. I cannot ignore that the increase in “democracy” at the expensive of “republic” follows September 17, 1787: domestic Tory-descendants have, so far, dominated Whig-posterity.

Liberal democracy, or permanent chaos, is attractive, and a civic-people (world-wide) need to keep it that way, regardless of the Alinsky-Marxist organizations (AMO) noise with support from the media, Europeans, and China, as I speculate it. The U.S. is a republic, “if [ourselves and our Posterity (including legal immigrants)] can keep it”.

Why do Western outcasts fault Christianity?

None of the above government-definitions reflects the danger to an individual who disagrees with the U.S. government. I contend that is so, because the entity We the People of the United States, so far, accommodates political-tyranny, I think, to maintain personal-indolence. The civil-citizen is apathetic as aliens replace their intended, ordered republic with the chaos of liberal democracy. It seems most 2021 fellow-citizens share entertainment more than mutual-comprehensive-security. Civic-humility for individual personal-happiness takes work.

The U.S. citizen who works to comprehend how such a wonderful, proffered-culture can develop 2021’s divergent-chaos is erroneously deemed an outcast by his own children, neighbors, former friends, and most acquaintances. That’s my opinion, since I do not know the-ineluctable-truth. The suggestions the civic-citizen makes don’t even warrant most fellow-citizen’s appreciative improvements, even “constructive criticism”. That is, such a person works almost in seclusion:  Civil-citizens are too busy living their Anglo-American dream to develop self-interest in RHI. It is not a recent development, as the ngram study shows.

For example, in 1774, the founders, admitted to themselves that their fellow-subjects in Great Britain were enslaving English-colonists --- coercing them to manage African slaves while being taxed to pay English war-debts. In preparing to declare independence, they perceived the need to emancipate the slaves. But they lost sight of that dream with the challenge of an 8:5 slave-state disadvantage and assumption that one individual cannot challenge such odds: a higher power must appear. Wait for the-God. Did it matter that 99% of free citizens prayed to their personal-Trinity?

English visitor in America, Thomas Paine, in 1775 wrote, “To Americans: That some desperate wretches should be willing to steal and enslave men by violence and murder for gain is rather lamentable than strange. But that many civilized, nay, Christianized people should approve, and be concerned in the savage practice, is surprising; and still persist, though it has been so often proved contrary to the light of nature, to every principle of Justice and Humanity, and even good policy, by a succession of eminent men, and several late publications”. Paine died in 1809, an outcast, with grave site a “revived mystery”; https://www.nytimes.com/1976/07/19/archives/paine-tombstone-uncovered-upstate-revives-mystery-about-pamphleteer.html. Michael M. Kiley, in 1985 (jstor. org/stable/23539022) wrote that Paine was unlike both Burke (classical conservative, original sin, natural privilege) or Locke (like Burke and with a [God’s]-property privilege moderated by government) and more like Williams’ independence, Franklin’s civic-citizenship, and Crevecoeur’s humble-integrity. Paine’s political philosophy was picked up by Emerson, Thoreau, and Whitman.

With the slave-state disadvantage in 1787, the framers wrote a constitution that prepared for emancipation when the non-slave states gained the majority. Between 1846’s 15:14 slave-state ratio and 1858’s 15:17, white on white Christian blood-letting ignited in “Bleeding Kansas”. Part of extreme animosity arose from white-New-England-abolitionist’s reaction to the 1850 Fugitive Slave Act. Black Patriot Frederick Douglas spoke against it on July 5, 1852, with U.S. President Millard Fillmore and Congress members present. Douglas said, “By an act of the American Congress, not yet two years old, slavery has been nationalized in its most horrible and revolting form. . . The power is co-extensive with the star-spangled banner, and American Christianity.”

Unbelievably, R.E. Lee could not connect Douglas’s patriotism and the white-on-white Christian murders, sell all his property, and move to a non-slave state. He wrote to his to-be-unfortunate wife, in 1756: “The doctrines & miracles of our Saviour have required nearly two thousand years to Convert but a small part of the human race, & even Christian nations, what gross errors still exist! While we see the Course of the final abolition of human slavery is onward, & we give it the aid of our prayers & all justifiable means in our power we must leave the progress as well as the result in his hands who Sees the end; who Chooses to work by slow influences ; & with whom two thousand years are but a single day.” The next few sentences castigate white, Christian abolitionists. I wish Lee had perceived Genesis 1:26-28 in my view: Jesus will not usurp RHI. Unlike Lee and the CSA (see their declaration of secession), no clergyman can so ruinously distract my person from humble-self-interest.

The civil war was a white-on-white Christian event. And that is not the last Christian travesty against 1787 U.S. intentions. If journalists existed, we would have a catalogue of Christian-offenses by U.S. officials. Here’s the latest in my list:  Running-mate and U.S. V.P. Mike Pence betrayed the political philosophy in Genesis 1:26-28 when he claimed on January  4, 2021 to “witness for Christ” and two days later betrayed the U.S. Commander-in-Chief, Donald Trump. For all we know, the Jesus of “before Abraham was born I AM” is the author of Genesis-1’s appeal to humankind for order&prosperity to the earth and its inhabitants. How can any human-being claim to witness for Jesus?

My hard-earned-U.S.-opinion

In my opinion, insistence on U.S. factional, Protestant Christianity in 1789 morphing to Judeo-Christianity competing with Judeo-Catholicism in 2021, is at the heart of U.S. civil-chaos. Add to the competition from the Judeo-Tewahedo-Christian faction, with its 350 AD Ethiopian Bible-canon. Unfortunately, Christian “authorizations” during the past 2,000 years led to the U.S. as humankind’s neglected hope for responsible-human-independence (RHI).

The ancient beginning

I think Middle-Easterners, perhaps Sumerians, 5,000 years ago, suggested RHI in their political-art --- polytheism. About 2,000 years later, a literature-writer recorded the political philosophy in Genesis 1:26-28. I apply the recent 5,000 years’ human-discovery to express the message in my art:  Female&male-human-being must&can provide order&prosperity to the earth&content. It would not bother me if another nation grew tired of the U.S. failure and independently created a RHI-culture.

Considering the individual, human condition, one is constrained to consider what could inspire RHI or better, 5,000 years ago. If our understanding of evolution is near, homo sapiens was 295,000 years into their development, or beginning their recent 1.7% of progress. I suggest mutual necessity&justice was becoming evident. Necessity is driven by physics and its progeny --- mathematics, the chemistries, biology, psychology, imagination, natural disaster --- and the consequential provisions for responsible human-survival. In this regard --- equally-responsible-survival, human-justice may be gaged, leaving the-God’s justice to the-God. Maybe the young scribes added a God to the ancient suggestion. Physics may be discovered by researching the-ineluctable-evidence. “Ineluctable” means “not to be avoided, changed, or resisted” (MW). The researcher who resorts to reason beyond the evidence wanders into metaphysics, awaiting ineluctable correction.

Fortunately or not, the ancient philosophy presented RHI or better as a blessing&instruction from the-God (of wisdom in their polytheism: the creator). During the following 2,000 years, monotheism dominated political debate, and nations developed doctrinal-Gods purported to favor their people. From Genesis 1 to Genesis 2, the literature changes the name of the-God. And it revises the RHI-story to one of female deceiving male, creating chaos where order may begin: in the family. Family infidelity increases chaos rather than provides order.

The rest of the Bible-books bare abundant examples of individuals behaving against their self-interests, in order to gain temporal, egocentric satisfactions. Voltaire wrote “the disciples of the God of truth [Christ] taking their master's title, and calling themselves ‘anointed’ like Him, declared, as soon as they could, an eternal war on all the peoples who were not anointed, and made war among themselves for fourteen hundred years, taking the names of Arians, Manicheans, Donatists, Hussites, Papists, Lutherans, Calvinists. And lastly, the Jansenists and the Molinists have had no more poignant mortification than that of not having been able to slaughter each other in pitched battle. Whence does this come?” I suggest it comes from the Apostle John, at John 15:18-23. It uses “hate” 5 times, and I do not follow civil leaders who suggest civic-hate.

Voltaire’s catalogue of warring Christians are from sect-founders living in AD 256-336, 216–274, died 355, 1372-1415, 1532–1559 in England, 1483-1546, 1509-1564, died 1638, and 1535-1600, respectively. Voltaire died in 1778, in Paris, and is entombed in the Pantheon.

Skip from the Bible’s ancient books to 1513 and Machiavelli’s “The Prince”. While Niccolò examines Church involvement in principalities, he employs “God” 6 of 11 times in Chapter XXVI, wherein he is appealing for a prince who is capable, in necessity&military-justice, of leading Italy to independence. He does not suggest a Chapter XI church-state wealth-partnership, accommodated by the inhabitants’ faith-mystery. He seems to affirm Genesis 1:26-28, stating “God is not willing to do everything, and thus take away our free will and that share of glory which belongs to us”. Then, in 1517, Machiavelli published “Discourses on Livy”, and starts by asserting that republics are formed 2 ways: by inhabitants or by foreigners. If formed by inhabitants their incentive, in my art, is security through internal civic-integrity: individual, civic-inhabitants responsibly pursue the happiness each perceives, confident that necessity will motivate them to domestic justice; again, Machiavelli perhaps affirming Genesis-1.

Skip again to 1689, when England, under its Bill of Rights became a Protestant monarchy, with 26 seats in Parliament constitutionally assigned to the Church of England. England had been warring for independence from Rome since Magna Carta, 1215.

The legacy from which independence remains only intended

Inheriting both this Catholic vs Protestant squabble plus the imposition of African slavery, dominated by Liverpool ship yards and English colonization, the USA founders, in 1776 declaration of war for independence from England seemed aware of both Genesis-1’s RHI and Machiavelli’s opinion that God would not usurp humankind’s responsibility. The 1776 Declaration separates church and state by 1) claiming human-authority from “Nature’s God” rather than from England’s Trinity, and 2) appealing “to the Supreme Judge of the world” for military providence (the founders requested in 1778 from France).

Having won the war, the free&independent states could not settle domestic disputes and gain unity for global connections. Consequently, 1787 framers created the world’s first republic based on domestic-discipline by the people. Humble-integrity is required for individual discipline, and RHI is essential to constraining un-disciplined fellow-citizens. Without necessity&justice, a wayward fellow-citizen has no incentive to reform. Just as God will not usurp RHI, government cannot force reform. The individual must perceive responsible-self-interest, in humble-integrity, to develop self-discipline to RHI.

Each U.S. civic-citizen, where “civic” refers to necessary&just human connections, must&can own a personal interpretation of the 1787 U.S. intentions. Mine just now is: The entity We the People of the United States proffers&practices 5 public disciplines---integrity, justice, peace, strength, and prosperity, “in order to” encourage&facilitate RHI “to ourselves and our Posterity”. The original document also excludes religious discipline --- I think, to facilitate personal-privacy. There are no specified-standards for the disciplines, because posterity’s posterity will continue to pursue statutory justice into the future.  “Liberty” was a John Locke passion turned sour by the 1789 Bloody Revolution in France and by the violence in Democrat-controlled U.S. cities in 2020. Voltaire’s concurrence with Locke is not born of U.S. independence: it’s steeped in bestowed or licensed liberty.

Congressional betrayal

All of the above cited literature was known and ignored when, in 1789, Congress, U.S.-unconstitutionally, partnered with religion. The entity We the People of the United States has accommodated “freedom of religion”, effectively avoiding RHI, ever since. Most Americans take it for granted that they should bargain with their personal-God to usurp their opportunity to practice humble-integrity. Beware: metaphysics gets corrected by physics.

Bringing this unexpected tome to a point

Turning now, to your question, Mr. Lindsay, it seems to me the political philosophy from 5,000 years ago effectively divides humankind into two groups: 1) those who perceive fellow-humans on their personal-journey, at their pace, toward RHI, and 2) those who assume every individual is committed to their dependency. The RHI-individual reserves enough humility toward the-God (whatever that entity may be) to accept the Genesis-1 suggested-discipline to aid order&prosperity on earth for necessity&justice. The dependent has not accepted the responsibility of being a human-being and has chosen any of indolence, abuse, religious-imposition, crime, tyranny, evil, and worse. I think Jesus, Agathon, Machiavelli, and Ralph Waldo Emerson expressed RHI, while Aristotle, Aquinas, John Locke, Voltaire, and James Madison advocate dependency. Their commonality is that they suggest their personal-God will usurp the human-responsibility they reject.

If the U.S.-republic is unavailable, I prefer autocracy to liberal democracy. First, the autocrat might be kind and efficient, and second if not, they might be interested in a civic-citizen’s opinion. As for Voltaire’s literary-brilliance, I doubt I’ll visit it again. Good grief: I have not read Victor Hugo.

Facebook: Phil Beaver | Facebook

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emil_Cioran (deciding not to buy “The Trouble with Being Born”

September 8, 2021

In chemical engineering, professional error/omission may cause injury to innocent people: metaphysics gets no consideration.

The principle applies to civic-citizenship: lies get exposed in human-loss&misery --- injury rather than sentiment. We, the 2021 "ourselves and our Posterity", including legal immigrants, must&can hold voters, elected representatives, and appointed officials in local, state, and national governments accountable to civic-citizenship.

September 10, 2021

It’s hard to fathom: word usage “democracy” surpassed “republic” in 1909! Chaos surpassed order! The margin is widening, and a rapidly growing sub-phrase is “liberal democracy”. Huh? Is that divergent chaos?

The Google Books Ngram Viewer shows that word usage "democracy" overtook "republic" in Google-books' relative frequency during these years: 1800, 1909, 1942 (the FDR of freedom from want), and 2018 --- 9:100, 19:19, 96:15, and 72:15, respectively. In 2018, “liberal democracy” was a 2 within “democracy”-s 72. Sadly, the U.S. continuum "ourselves and our Posterity" since 1787 let domestic and foreign aliens to the U.S. Constitution bemuse us with their wishes to us.

The U.S. promises a republican form of government to prevent democracy's chaos and now liberal democracy’s divergence. More than anything else, "republican" means an informed and engaged citizenry that holds fellow-citizens who serve in local, state, and federal governments responsible to statutory justice based on the-ineluctable-evidence rather than on metaphysics. In other words, the rule of law must conform to reality rather than reasonable opinion. For example, a citizen can think they have a right to know mathematics, but no government is going to (can) bestow the knowledge to them.

The direct cause of the U.S. history of personal political-apathy is the "religious freedom" Congress unconstitutionally imposed on "ourselves and our Posterity". The free-citizens of 1789 were 99% factional-American-Protestants, each with a personal-God. They could not imagine the chaos "freedom of religion" in the hands of Congress would produce. In 1955, 70% were factional-Protestants and accepted the dreadful motto change "E Pluribus Unum" to "In God We Trust", sponsored by the Knights of Columbus. How must the-God, perhaps of “E Pluribus Unum”, perceive such arrogance by factional Christians? One effect to the 2021 "ourselves" is $28.7 trillion national debt with many financially-failing states.

Make no mistake: I do not fault the Christian who worships, praises, and prays for comfort&hope in this conflicted world. I have been there, with tears streaming down my face as I sang "Give me Jesus" with desperate pain wracking my body. No one in the choir perceived my pain: pursuit of religion is personally-private and perhaps they had their own burdens. The 1787 framers proffered spiritual personal-privacy in the U.S. Constitution. Not only that, I have a reasonable, metaphysical-construct to show that Jesus (be perfect and I AM) could be the author of Genesis 1:26-28; it assigns to humankind the independent responsibility for order on earth. I call it responsible-human-independence.

The change I demand is that Congress, the Supreme Court, and the administration reform from using religion to oppress "ourselves and our Posterity" including legal immigrants: The excuse ". . . so help me God" is blasphemy when a fellow-citizen accepts constitutional responsibility. And re-establishing and maintaining English tradition is tyranny. Calling it colonial-English or Anglo-American means nothing to Genesis 1, the 1776 Declaration, and the 1787 Constitution.

However, Congress does not respond to a citizen. We, the 2021 "ourselves and our Posterity" must&can individually persuade 3/4 of us in 3/4 of our states to amend the First Amendment to encourage&facilitate individual-civic-integrity rather than impose civil-religious-pride.

With the internet and your version of this message, we can imitate an achievable better future.

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.