Establish pursuit of a great America

 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, safety, 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

Establish pursuit of a great America

Due to the political dominance of Anglo-American Christianity in the first Congress, the U.S. has never established the responsible-human-independence (RHI) that “ourselves and our Posterity” requires to make America great. Congress imposes constraints of English-tradition rather than conforms to the-laws-of-physics. Congress upholds their freedom of religion at the expense of civic-citizens, We the People of the United States. “Civic” refers to reliable human connections and transactions more than civility.

As long as the civic-people wait for their-God to end the congressional tyranny, the alien-elites will continue to pick the people’s pockets with immunity. It has been evident for 5,500 years that neither a-God nor government can usurp humankind’s RHI to pursue comprehensive-safety& security to life on earth.

The John-Locke idea that communities can consent to reason-constructed-rule-of law rather than the-laws-of-physics to which humankind must comport has plagued the west since 1690.

News

theepochtimes.com/trump-vows-to-sue-fox-news-over-attack-ad_4721021.html?

As a fiscal conservative who also advocates responsible-human-independence (RHI) rather than dependence on either government or the-Higher-God, I had long since opined that Chris Wallace has an agenda that will serve his demise.

I have the same perception of the Lincoln Project.

People try to project their beliefs onto their-God, never establishing personal humility toward the-High-God. I don't know what constrains the consequences of human choice but think that opposing the-laws-of-physics is an arrogance a human lifetime cannot sustain.

Creating and ratifying the 1791 Bill of Rights, Congress resumed Anglo-American Christianity's oppression on the U.S.. Consequently, the U.S. has never established the greatness intended by the 39 of 55 framers who signed the 1787 U.S. Constitution.

Because of this dependency on England& its traditions, America has never had the opportunity to be great.

Civic-citizens, We the People of the United States, can establish a great America, by amending the First Amendment, Congress's imposition of freedom of religion to Congress. I suggest this revision:  Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or [promoting] the free exercise thereof.

With that change, the-civic-citizens could effect further reforms to Make America Great, at last.

Presenters on Fox News as well as Donald Trump can& may choose to be leaders for Make America Great (or better slogan) or leave the opportunity for their fellow citizens.

People like Mike Pence? I don't think it's possible, but could be wrong. They can't imagine the self-interest of RHI.

Quora

quora.com/unanswered/What-is-the-definition-of-intellectual-dishonesty-and-how-does-it-affect-us-in-our-lives? by quora, I guess

The definition of enacted “intellectual dishonesty” is “lying”. Its impact on our lives is misery& loss.

Lying is most harmful when scholars purport falsehood is the truth. For example, John Locke, in Two Treatises on Government, 1690, effected the foil of equating human being with property and disconnectedly claiming that-property’s rights to property; God’s property has rights over God’s property. Locke claimed that a man has the natural right to kill another if “in his opinion” death is required. On page 6 of 101, Locke wrote,

“The state of nature has a law of nature to govern it, which obliges every one: and reason, which is that law, teaches all mankind, who will but consult it, that being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions: for men being all the workmanship of one omnipotent, and infinitely wise maker; all the servants of one sovereign master, sent into the world by his order, and about his business; they are his property.”

Thus, by reason more than physics, every person is a property of Locke’s God, mysterious as that God may be. Locke’s assertions are valid to every person who considers them; if so, they are “equal and independent”. As Locke-God property, “sent into the world [for] his business”, they “ought not harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions”.

Then, on page 37/101, Locke wrote,

“Man being born, as has been proved, with a title to perfect freedom, and an uncontrouled enjoyment of all the rights and privileges of the law of nature, equally with any other man, or number of men in the world, hath by nature a power, not only to preserve his property, that is, his life, liberty and estate, against the injuries and attempts of other men; but to judge of, and punish the breaches of that law in others, as he is persuaded the offence deserves, even with death itself, in crimes where the heinousness of the fact, in his opinion, requires it.”

Locke finishes that paragraph explaining that societies separate from nature using society’s rule of law to act as umpire in disputes between men, leaving the balance of humankind still under the law of nature.

      The Wikipedia article on the treatises informs us that Locke was refuting the theory of the divine rule of kings. Wikipedia’s assessment of the text from which I extracted these quotes follows:

“The Second Treatise outlines a theory of civil society. Locke begins by describing the state of nature, a picture much more stable than Thomas Hobbes' state of "war of every man against every man," and argues that all men are created equal in the state of nature by God. From this, he goes on to explain the hypothetical rise of property and civilization, in the process explaining that the only legitimate governments are those that have the consent of the people. Therefore, any government that rules without the consent of the people can, in theory, be overthrown.”

What’s left out by both Locke and Wikipedia is the fact that some persons choose not to be part of humankind. Some choose to be animals and worse and some choose to be alien-elites. With this third consideration, I am feel positioned to make my point.

      Human history since the advent of monotheism, about 4,000 years ago, informs us that political-power-elites accept humankind’s resistance to governmental force and therefore seek a coercive-means to control the masses. When a society believes in a God, elites can rule them without domestic force as long as the laws are consistent with religious canon. And the political elites can partner with the clergy to gradually manage doctrine so as to comport to political necessity. God is a mystery and belief in a-God is a fantasy.

      The fallacy in Locke’s work is this: societies can consent to rule of law rather than conform to “the workmanship of one omnipotent, and infinitely wise” physics. The suggestion that humankind can divide itself based on group-consent to politically-constructed laws rather than work together to discover& apply the “infinitely wise” laws of physics is perhaps history’s most devastating lie. The perpetrators are alien to humankind.

      If a reader finds some validity in my opinion (I don’t know the-ineluctable-truth), they might wish for a suggestion of what to do to establish an achievable better future. My suggestion is to amend the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution to the following: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or [promoting] the free exercise thereof. This reform away from Anglo-American dependency unto U.S. independence would promulgate establishment of the U.S. made possible by the 1787 U.S. Constitution then oppressed by the 1791 Bill of Rights. The 1787 U.S. intention is responsible-human-independence “to ourselves and our Posterity”.

quora.com/Which-is-better-rule-or-act-utilitarianism? by Abubakar Ismail and Jony Badoni

Merriam-Webster online informs us that “utilitarianism” is “a doctrine that the useful is the good and that the determining consideration of right conduct should be the usefulness of its consequences”. The very weight of this definitions seem deceitful, whether by rule or by action. And some proponents assert that liars offer utility.

Physics continuously demonstrates that lies beget misery and loss. I like to say physics discloses the-ineluctable-truth, and until the-ineluctable-evidence is discovered, a human being ought to say what they think and follow with, “Yet I do not know”. “Ineluctable” means “not to be avoided, changed, or resisted.

In conversation about “ineluctable”, a Christian said that he intends to speak the truth. The speaker continued, “For example, Jesus said, ‘I am the way and the truth and the life” [John 14:6]”, then added, “I do not know the truth Jesus cited”.

I asked, “How can you intend to speak truth you don’t know?”

The conversation died, I hope temporarily. I hope the speaker gained curiosity to express, “I don’t know”, when that is so. We’ll see.

It seems to me this challenge applies to any religious belief:  If the-ineluctable-evidence has not been discovered, it seems wise to express with serene confidence, “I believe, yet do not know”. Accepting not-knowing is more self-interesting than pretense. Pretense is obvious to human beings, and every civic-person knows it.

quora.com/What-does-honesty-mean-to-you-Do-you-see-that-honesty-is-missing-now? by Mohamed Alshennawy

Honesty means doing what you think is right, even though it could be wrong. Immediate satisfaction is insufficient intention to becoming human. Being human requires integrity, especially civic-integrity, a mutual self-interest. “Civic” means reliable in human connections and transactions.

Something constrains the consequences of personal choice. It seems that the-laws-of-physics effect that power. However, many persons choose dependency rather than civic-integrity. Some people look to metaphysical-higher-power to usurp their responsibility to self. For example, to earn the living they desire.

Perhaps the ultimate honesty is to expect a personal-God to usurp personal civic-integrity. The-High-God cannot, and therefore will not, usurp the-laws-of-physics. This is made plain to every person who chooses to develop as a human-being.

Honesty is insufficient to both integrity and humility.

quora.com/What-is-the-definition-of-a-constitutional-government-What-are-its-characteristics-features-and-principles?? By anonymous

A constitutional government applies force on its citizens based on documents that were published before the event in question occurred. Three elements establish the political power on which force may be specified and effected: deliberation& legislation, administration, and adjudication.

The purpose of government is to develop and journal statutory justice to humankind, the species that is responsible, by default, to pursue order and prosperity to life on earth. The individual human has the opportunity, power, energy, and authority to acquire civic-integrity. “Civic” means reliable connectivity with fellow-citizens and their associations. With civic-integrity a human-being chooses responsible-human-independence (RHI). Thereby, they pursue the happiness they perceive rather than submit to the view someone else has for them.

Not every human chooses RHI. Therefore, civic-citizens fund the development and enforcement to constrain or terminate dependent fellow-citizens. Dependencies include religious arrogance, indolence, crime, evil, tyranny, and irretrievable harmfulness. Statutory justice demands termination in the last listed dependency.

I know of only one nation that proffered pursuit of statutory justice “to ourselves and our Posterity”. The U.S. that was proposed in the 1787 U.S. Constitution. Unfortunately, 3 of 9 ratifying state conventions required the imposition of religion by amendment they authorized to the First Congress. The put the wolf in charge, and Congress unconstitutionally assigned itself freedom of religion. As a second tyranny, Congress can define “religion” any way they want to.

The civic-citizens, We the People of the United States, can& may reform. I suggest amending the First Amendment to: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or [promoting] the free exercise thereof”.

quora.com/Can-the-world-ever-have-total-and-complete-liberty-where-every-view-will-be-respected-equally? by Jerry

No. Liberty as a personal goal is self-defeating. Neither another person, the government, the mob, nor the-High-God can grant liberty.

And the human-being is too powerful to accept liberty. The human individual can& may take their singular, lifetime opportunity& power& energy& and authority to acquire the civic-integrity to practice, facilitate& encourage responsible-human-independence (RHI). Dependent fellow-citizens cannot fathom civic-integrity.

The Sumerian civilization nearly suggested RHI 5,500 years ago. The necessary political philosophy is almost journaled, by Hebrew scholars in their vernacular, in Genesis 1:28. Female& male human-being can& may independently pursue order& prosperity to life on earth.

An RHI nation is proposed by the framers (55) and signers (39) of the 1787 U.S. Constitution. The civic-citizens, We the People of the United States, may establish and develop RHI whenever 2/3 of them decide civic-integrity is in “ourselves and our [Posterity’s]” best interest.

The divergent-chaos the U.S. suffers after 233 years’ operation could inspire the needed reforms to civic-neglect.

Liberty can& may yield to civic-integrity, if not in the U.S., in another nation.

Law professors

lawliberty.org/book-review/if-conservatives-are-the-new-punks-are-progressives-the-new-puritans/?

A deeper message against (conservative) nationalism is that progressivism is an extension of 5,500 year’ suppression of what I call responsible-human-independence (RHI). Religious conservatism is ruinous and the progressive reaction is worse.

The polytheistic Sumerians suggested that their-Gods could not and therefore would not provide comprehensive-safety& security (security) to life on earth. Further, they experienced& observed that some inhabitants perceived self-interest in RHI and aided security to the best of their ability, while others chose dependency. Progress will come when at least 2/3 of a nation’s inhabitants responsibly pursue through RHI the happiness they perceive rather than subjugate to someone else’s view for them; in other words, personally improve the Sumerian political philosophy.

To facilitate reform to arbitrary dependents, the succession of Sumerian kings established& improved law codes. The unarticulated intention was to promote, facilitate& encourage RHI to the necessary elements of government: workers, artisans, administrators, and leaders.

Accepting not knowing, they responded to whatever constrains the consequences of human choices, including the economics that a day’s existence ought to yield a day’s comprehensive civic-benefit plus enough to live as human being. An erroneous approach was “eye for eye”, which incapacitates the errant/accused citizen. Unfortunately, the last king did not admit to three evils: slavery, tyranny, and religious arrogance. The Babylonian conquer, Hammurabi, is credited with the culmination of the Sumerian codes of law.

Fifteen-hundred years later, monotheism became dominate in the west, and tribes pitted their-God against the-other-nation’s-God. Political philosophy changed from pursuing RHI to bargaining to The-High-Power, a mystery. The folly is that mystery is entreated to usurp human being for security. The consequence is 4,000 years’ divergent chaos. Polytheism has suppressed theism, leaving RHI as a viable practice toward potential security.

The achievable resolution of the conservative vs progressive divide is 2/3 of inhabitants aiding RHI, both for security and for (responsible) personal-pursuit-of-happiness.

Facebook

facebook.com/john.parks, September 8, 2022

One may ask why Sowell, who excited me in my work, more than I typically recognize, had so little impact on the USA. I think it is readers' fault yet cannot cite Sowell's political-action message beyond perhaps: earn your way of living.

Your post, John, comes at the right time for my life. I can& may consider adding Sowell to my list of lifetime influencers, such as the-metaphysical-Jesus, Ralph Waldo Emerson, Plato, Cynthia, Chekhov, O'Connor, Hume, and a few more. The-metaphysical-Jesus is: the suggestions the generations can& may glean from reports about Jesus and their impacts on humankind's pursuit of the-good.

I learned that responsible-human-independence (RHI) expresses discipline as self-interest rather than compliance with higher power. Therefore, I suggest RHI more than self-discipline. With personal-RHI, the human being can& may pursue the happiness they want rather than submit-to the happiness someone else would impose.

Something constrains the consequences of personal choices, and the person who is taught both humility to the-laws-of-physics and commitment-to comprehensive-safety& security-to-living-species-on-earth can& may develop themselves as a serene, confident human being, rather than mineral, plant, animal, or spirit. I'm reminded of Chapter XI Machiavellianism.

No higher power -- neither persons, government, wealth, nor God -- can and therefore will usurp the person's opportunity to develop RHI -- to become a human being.

I wish Sowell had expressed better than RHI-for-happiness and how to accomplish it as a nation.

facebook.com/margo.frey September 6, 2022

He looks marvelous.

Kahlil Gibran's "On Children" is a 15-line poem. Please take a minute to read it.

Connor's demeanor gave me a perspective I didn't imagine before: Connor was born to be an adult human-being in an achievable, better time!

I work to aid the improvements.

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.