Voluntary Civic People of Baton Rouge

Saturday, May 9, 2020

Journalism: sinking to new lows

Journalism: sinking to new lows

Phil Beaver seeks to collaborate on the-objective-truth, which can only be discovered. The comment box below invites readers to write.

"Civic" refers to citizens who collaborate for individual happiness with civic integrity more than for the city, state, nation, or society.

Consider writing a personal paraphrase of the preamble, which offers fellow citizens mutual equality: For discussion, I convert the preamble’s predicate phrases to nouns and paraphrase it for my interpretation of its proposal as follows: “We the People of the United States consider, communicate, collaborate, and connect to practice 5 public disciplines: integrity, justice, peace, strength, and prosperity so as to encourage both living fellow citizens and future citizens to take advantage of responsible human independence.” I want to improve my interpretation by listening to other citizens and their interpretations yet would preserve the original, 1787, text, unless it is amended by the people.

It seems the Supreme Court occasionally refers to it, and no one has challenged whether or not the preamble is a legal statement. The fact that it changed this independent country from a confederation of states to a union of states deliberately managed by disciplined fellow citizens convinces me the preamble is legal. Equity in opportunity and outcome is shared by the people who collaborate for human justice.

Every citizen has equal opportunity to either trust-in and collaborate-on the goals stated in the preamble or be dissident to the agreement. I think 2/3 of citizens try somewhat to use the preamble but many do not articulate commitment to the goals. However, it seems less than 2/3 understand that “posterity” implies grandchildren. “Freedom of religion,” which fellow citizens have no means to discipline, oppresses freedom to develop integrity.

Selected theme from this week

Journalism has sunk so low reporters think nothing of taking advantage of a nurse with unexpected questions. Then writers for the press shape the pseudo-news about the reporter’s report making the reporter’s product appear as an offense by the nurse’s host, who happens to be President Donald Trump. The hapless nurse is so distracted as to report her anecdotal use of Personal Protective Equipment for weeks of COVID19 service including a baby. Frankly, I don’t believe the nurse’s story, but if confirmed, the child’s parents should hold the nurse responsible for the misbehavior.

As for the reporter, the writer, and the writer’s newspaper, there is no expected hope.

News

An illustration of fake news writers reporting a fake new construct (Ramon Antonio Vargas) (https://www.nola.com/news/coronavirus/article_cd09e816-90b7-11ea-bce2-6b13ce0fb2fb.html)

Nurses heretofore have developed a reliable profession. But journalists have made themselves the lowest of the low ways to "make" a living---right in there with criminals in some cases. In this article, a writer expounds on a reporter's mischief in the oval office.

What's the cause of this unfortunate outcome for journalism? The First Congress ratified the First Amendment. The 1787 Constitution limited powers of governments so that We the People of the United States could hold fellow citizens in elected or appointed office accountable. Powers not granted to the states or to the three branches of the states' Union remained with the people. Congress, in 1791, unconstitutionally granted the press power without constraint. We the People of the United States have not yet held Congress accountable.

A reporter in the White House asked a question that led the president of the American Association of Nurse Practitioners to respond, in effect, that some hospitals fail to provide nurses ideal Personal Protective Equipment (PPE). The reporter claims the nurse shamelessly added her own anecdote: She used a dirty mask for a few weeks with COVID19 patients including a 4-day-old infant. Unbelievable story!

The caption I get is: Writer for The Advocate constructs incendiary pseudo-news about wayward, arrogant N.O. nurse entrapped by a reporter. The body of the story could imply that a responsible nurse cleans her PPE before each use and that nurse's presidency is in jeopardy. Nevertheless, the errant nurse appreciated President Trump for recognizing the professional nurses in her society.

The Advocate is shameless in pseudo-news about vicious reporters’ questions, and approving its own hired-gun’s handiwork. Vargas adequately expressed his independent dissidence to the entity We the People of the United States as proposed in the U.S. Preamble.

Returning to "the cause" mentioned above, suppression of the U.S. Preamble's proposition for responsible human independence by political regimes exacerbates neglect of the entity We the People of the United States by many individual citizens. A better future is available if most U.S. citizens own a personal interpretation of the U.S. Preamble's proposition and use it to order their civic, civil, and legal life, leaving humility toward whatever-God-is as a private choice.

Columns

Amend the First Amendment for integrity (David Norwod) (https://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/opinion/letters/article_8691c96e-8962-11ea-8a53-ef91e7eb48e8.html)

Not to lessen the other verses, I am grateful for Mr. Norwood’s reminder and think Verse 8 is especially important for an achievable better future. V.8: ". . . your Father knows what you need before you ask him."

This is one of the subtle motivations to babble for mysterious favor from whatever-God-is, and in my opinion obviously erroneous. We might be better off if Matthew had written, "your Father knows what you need" and may take offense at your pleas.

From this issue alone, We the People of the United States, the society of citizens who trust-in and commit-to the people's proposition that is offered willing citizens in the preamble to the United States Constitution. That proposition leaves it to the human justice to be discovered by posterity's posterity to set the standards for the 5 public disciplines and 1 purpose proposed therein: integrity, justice, peace, strength, and prosperity to encourage responsible human independence to the continuum of living citizens. The preamble leaves religion and spirituality a private rather than public discipline.

For an achievable better future We the People of the United States need to amend the first Amendment so as to protect integrity rather than religion and either 1) drop all civil reference to an arrogant God or 2) change to the humble "whatever-God-is".

Quora

https://www.quora.com/Does-the-moral-value-of-a-person-s-actions-depend-upon-the-outcome-of-that-action-Why?

Yes.

The standard by which a person chooses either integrity or infidelity is the-literal-truth. Usually, a human does not know the-literal-truth and therefore must admit to self: I do not know the-literal-truth in this matter. If a person must act anyway, the action must represent the-literal-truth.

For example, with a gun pointed at you by someone who intends to kill you to get his or her wishes, the strong-you can say something like: If you move a muscle to shoot that gun you will die. You must have the power, alertness, and skill to execute the threat or the aggressor will not believe you. With reliable strength, you may convince the aggressor and save both lives. For such reasons, strength is the best defense against potential aggression. Also, lying is deadly.

Many U.S. citizens don’t realize it, but being a U.S. citizen and not owning an interpretation of the U.S. Preamble’s proposition and using it to order civic, civil, and legal behavior lacks integrity. The outcome of neglecting the U.S. Preamble is to lessen individual and descendents’ opportunity for responsible human independence.

https://www.quora.com/Can-you-allow-everyone-to-act-in-their-own-self-interest-and-achieve-an-outcome-that-s-fair?

Yes, you can, by encouraging pursuit of individual happiness with civic integrity as proposed in the U.S. Preamble.

Concepts like these come from public library meetings led by A Civic People of the United States, a non-revenue generating Louisiana corporation I founded in July, 2015. We develop civic jargon that appeals to civic citizens who accept a nest of human principles, including the following:

It is in a person’s self-interest to accept each of:

1. Being human.

2. The human opportunities to take advantage of

a. Un-consignable human, individual power, individual energy, and individual authority (HIPEA) to develop either integrity or infidelity to the-literal-truth. When ineluctable-evidence for the-literal-truth is unknown, the civic response is: I don’t know).

b. Preserved humility toward whatever-God-is even while pursuing a personal-God-or-none for hope and comfort.

c. Neither initiating nor tolerating harm to or from a fellow citizen or a society, in order to aid human equity under statutory justice; in other words, practicing responsible human independence.

d. Contributing to statutory justice by discovering harmful, written law-enforcement and suggesting correction toward the-literal-truth or statutory justice, unattainable as absolute perfect law may be.

3. Considering other inhabitants as civic citizens until they lawfully express infidelity to their human opportunities, then aiding civic, civil, or legal encouragement to them to reform, as well as suggesting correction of any error in statutory law-enforcement.

This is only an introduction to these principles, which have been developed during a couple decades’ work to promote the widespread practice of the people’s proposition that is offered in the preamble to the U.S. Constitution (the U.S. Preamble).

The subject of the sentence is “We the People of the United States [who want the public disciplines stated herein],” and the object is “ourselves and our Posterity,” or the continuum of living citizens. The practice, in my view, is 5 public disciplines that include integrity, justice, peace, strength, and prosperity so as to encourage responsible human independence to living citizens. Religion is excluded.

Factional political regimes want living citizens to think that civic citizens conform to the opinions of “the founders” more than the 1787 Constitution’s framers (55 representatives of 12 eastern seaboard former British-American colonies), its signers (39 consenting framers), and the people of the 9 states whose representatives ratified the U.S. Preamble with the provision that the Articles would be amended so as to include a British-mimicking Bill of Rights. The 16 dissenting framers tended to want preservation of British-American “common good” rather than the civic integrity proposed by the U.S. Preamble.

British legal precedence is political mendacity that keeps the U.S. physically separated from England yet psychologically bound to colonial British-American tradition. We the People of the United States can end self-tolerated 1791 British oppression by establishing and developing mutually advantageous civic connections. Civic citizens use the U.S. Preamble’s proposition under the-objective-truth as perceived with available instruments to discover the ineluctable evidence. As humans improve their instruments for perception, the-objective-truth gradually approaches the-literal-truth, reducing public infidelity. Posterity’s posterity sets the standards for the 5 disciplines as well as responsible human independence.

All of the above principles and observations were developed in our library meetings since June 21, 2014, and have been recorded on our web sites, A Civic People and Voluntary Civic People of Baton Rouge.

What I write this day to your creative question, Lawson Shepherd, is original, even though I use words and phrases published on the blogs, especially under “A civic glossary.” No one can legitimately claim that your creative question did not inspire my response.

I hope this essay will inspire you and other fellow citizens to consider being a living “ourselves” to “our Posterity” in the coming generation. Therefore, develop your interpretation of the U.S. Preamble’s proposition which you would like to share with fellow citizens including your children and grandchildren in order to establish responsible human independence.

It would not disappoint me if the U.S. Preamble’s excellence under the-literal-truth emerged for humanity’s benefit in another country, for example, England. Meanwhile, I am urging American citizens to take charge of holding government officials responsible to the U.S. Preamble’s proposition.

A possibility to accelerate an achievable better future is for most Americans to acquire a most precious personal property: their individual interpretation of the U.S. Preamble’s proposition by which to order their civic, civil, and legal behavior while pursuing individual happiness, whatever-God-is.

Civic integrity, including reservation of enough humility toward whatever-God-is, is in fellow citizens’ best-interest, and the mere message may be enough to effect the reform, perhaps with acceleration to allow me to witness it happening sometime beyond my late-eighth decade.

https://www.quora.com/What-are-social-constructs-and-why-do-we-tend-to-stick-to-them?

We don’t take the time to develop civic integrity. If we did, we would admit that we are first members of the society that pursues individual happiness with civic integrity. For example, in the U.S., fellow citizens who practice their interpretation of the U.S. Preamble’s proposition.

Humankind is a consequence of ongoing evolution, and the individual human has the awareness and grammar by which to mutually consider, communicate-with, collaborate-with, and connect-with fellow citizens. The whole of humankind, for survival, works to discover the-literal-truth. For example, if the hurricane tracking authorities warn a locale to vacate, civic fellow citizens know what to do and dissidents to the ineluctable evidence are bemused.

Groups of humans, according to location and heritage have particular reactions to discovery, such as how to respond to hurricane forecasts. Some take the Hurricane Center’s advice and others risk their own preparations or none.

At least tens of thousands of years ago, some citizens imagined that other-worldly entities control human life. The people who imagined these entities discovered that innocent people could be convinced to fear these entities and pay for relief from threat. Eventually, the imagined entities were called gods. Finally, about 4,000 years ago, various cultures imagined one God with a name particular to a culture controls everything. The word “God” carries diverse fears that empower various clergy to persuade people who merely want to survive to adopt a doctrine and pay for the clergy’s welfare. The resulting theisms have the hubris to neglect even the slightest reservation of humility toward whatever-God-is.

The fear that is inculcated so strongly that each believer develops a variation of the clergy’s God as a personal God and spends their opportunity at life trying to maintain the modified doctrine. In a way, the believer has taken the humility to adopt whatever-God-is despite the clergy’s doctrine. In other words, such a believer exercises the integrity to appreciate civic fellow citizens without knowing their religions. For example, a Christian may hope-for and take-comfort in everlasting life yet develop civic integrity for living with people who expect reincarnation. In civic integrity, such a Christian imposes no religious demands on fellow citizens.

The faction of fellow American citizens who develop civic integrity while pursuing their personal religion belong to the society that is called We the People of the United States, the subject of the preamble to the U.S. Constitution (the U.S. Preamble). The social contract, in my view, is to maintain 5 public disciplines---integrity, justice, peace, strength, and prosperity---in order to encourage responsible human independence to the continuum of living citizens. Fellow citizens with similar interpretations of the U.S. Preamble keep the U.S. strong and resilient.

Not all citizens trust-in and commit-to the society We the People of the United States. Some fellow citizens demand colonial British-American partnership of church and state. Erroneously, the First Congress imposed this practice as factional-American-Protestantism. At has evolved to the oxymoron Judeo-Christianity or perhaps Judeo-Catholicism in competition with African-American Christianity. By tradition, the U.S. remains in the clutches of church-state partnership. Read Greece v Galloway (2014) to understand the U.S. need for relief from British-American tradition. The First Amendment ought to protect each citizen’s opportunity to develop integrity, leaving religion a private pursuit as tacitly stated in the U.S. Preamble.

I hope my essay has shown that social constructs arise from fear and persist on ignorance of civic integrity. In the U.S., church-state partnership is maintained by political regimes who repress development of the U.S. Preamble’s people’s proposition. Every citizen with civic self-interest owns a personal interpretation of the U.S. Preamble’s proposition for living.

https://www.quora.com/How-are-we-supposed-to-get-things-done-for-the-greater-good-if-people-are-apathetic?

Is the “we” we or someone else? Could the we be We the People of the United States as proposed in the U.S. Preamble?

When one person is passionate for “the greater good” someone who has not bought into John Lockean utilitarianism may have a different idea about the greater good. In fact utilitarian scholars don’t agree. Thus, they may be more opposed than apathetic. Same thing for we the people, a lame entity.

By studying the preamble to the U.S. Constitution, I have suggested that about 2/3 of fellow citizens are interested in one common good: mutual, comprehensive safety and security so that each fellow citizen may responsibly pursue individual happiness rather than accept the happiness another entity would dictate. The preamble proposes 5 public disciplines to encourage responsible human independence.

Acceptance that a supermajority of 2/3 of fellow citizens practicing their interpretation of the abstract proposition in the preamble would create an achievable better future is an admission that not everyone beholds the same “common good”. In other words, when posterity discovers civic integrity, it will not be for fellow citizens who prefer infidelity.

https://www.quora.com/Why-are-people-proud-of-things-they-have-no-control-over-that-they-didnt-achieve-themselves-I-am-proud-of-my-curly-hair-I-am-proud-of-my-heritage-I-am-proud-of-my-country?

Of course pride is erroneous.

Instead a person can be motivated to practice his or her intentions and share publicly the advantages. I think practicing the intention to behave with integrity rather than infidelity is worthy.

Integrity is the pursuit of the-literal-truth by accepting the individual-human initial-position: I don’t know; doing the work to discover the ineluctable evidence for the-objective-truth; behaving to take advantage of the discovery; sharing with fellow citizens the reasons for your choices and listening for constructive opinion; and being open to improved instruments of perception whereby the-objective-truth eventually approaches the-literal-truth.

The person who chooses to use his or her life developing integrity will humbly accept and admit his or her human error yet not repeat or foster it.

https://www.quora.com/unanswered/Why-does-the-nation-fail-to-produce-critical-discourse?

Most people do not accept being human, primarily because the culture does not encourage human appreciation. Among those who accept they are human, few accept that the human has the individual power, the individual energy, and the individual authority (HIPEA) to develop either integrity or infidelity.

Most people think their personal God rather than whatever-God-is will eventually correct their errant fellow citizens, including the fellow citizens who hold elected or appointed government office. They do not accept the ineluctable evidence that whatever-God-is assigned to human individuals the responsibility for human integrity.

Since fellow citizens do not accept responsibility for integrity, they feel no motivation to practice integrity in civic connections. Once a 2/3 majority of fellow citizens accept their HIPEA and use it to develop integrity, critical discourse will accelerate.

https://www.quora.com/Do-you-agree-with-the-view-that-social-change-is-the-result-of-the-actions-of-individuals-pursuing-their-self-interest?

I do and think posterity’s posterity will achieve a better future because humankind will promote integrity more than belief. Yet our generation could accelerate the better future.

Cultures have evolved such that most civilizations inculcate in their youth the quest for higher power, through whatever-God-is, government, or the partnership of church and state.

However, the human person has the individual power, the individual energy, and the individual authority (HIPEA) to develop for one lifetime either integrity or infidelity. Each human is unique (cannot be equal) and can pursue human equity under statutory justice even though they nourish hope and comfort in their personal God. People who accept their HIPEA and use it to develop integrity try to reform their culture to encourage fellow citizens to accept the self-interest of developing integrity.

U.S. citizens have, so far, neglected an outstanding proposal to develop these principles under the preamble to the U.S. Constitution (the U.S. Preamble), taking advantage of the ineluctable evidences of the-literal-truth. The U.S. Preamble proposes, in my view, 5 public disciplines to encourage responsible human independence. The 5 disciplines are integrity, justice, peace, strength, and prosperity (religion attributed to personal privacy). About 12 generations of Americans have left to our generation the privilege to establish public discipline under the U.S. Preamble’s proposition.

Let’s get started, accepting that another country might harness the personal-self-interest of integrity rather than infidelity before we do.

https://www.quora.com/unanswered/What-would-happen-if-everyone-was-treated-equally?

Enslavement, if it could be done.

Human beings have the individual power, the individual energy, and individual authority (HIPEA) to develop either integrity or infidelity. Those who choose integrity practice equity so as to encourage those who use HIPEA for infidelity to reform.

The psychologically mature human practices only a fraction of the integrity he or she could have with constant resistance-to and correction-of infidelity. His or her chances began as an ovum in his or her mom’s womb---a unique cell in a unique woman’s body. None of the events after his or her viability lessened his or her individuality.

If these considerations seem valid, the idea of making unique persons equal seems untenable. Equity comes with responsible human independence, but not every person chooses responsible independence.

These thoughts are mine. Some phrases can be discovered elsewhere by searching an interest. For example, on Google Chrome just now I got 5 results (one multiple) with the search: "phil beaver"+"individual authority"+"hipea"-"hipaa".

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.

Saturday, May 2, 2020

Lessening the “liberty” license

Phil Beaver seeks to collaborate on the-objective-truth, which can only be discovered. The comment box below invites readers to write.

"Civic" refers to citizens who collaborate for individual happiness with civic integrity more than for the city, state, nation, or society.

Consider writing a personal paraphrase of the preamble, which offers fellow citizens mutual equality: For discussion, I convert the preamble’s predicate phrases to nouns and paraphrase it for my interpretation of its proposal as follows: “We the People of the United States consider, communicate, collaborate, and connect to practice 5 public disciplines: integrity, justice, peace, strength, and prosperity so as to encourage both living fellow citizens and future citizens to take advantage of responsible human independence.” I want to improve my interpretation by listening to other citizens and their interpretations yet would preserve the original, 1787, text, unless it is amended by the people.

It seems the Supreme Court occasionally refers to it, and no one has challenged whether or not the preamble is a legal statement. The fact that it changed this independent country from a confederation of states to a union of states deliberately managed by disciplined fellow citizens convinces me the preamble is legal. Equity in opportunity and outcome is shared by the people who collaborate for human justice.

Every citizen has equal opportunity to either trust-in and collaborate-on the goals stated in the preamble or be dissident to the agreement. I think 2/3 of citizens try somewhat to use the preamble but many do not articulate commitment to the goals. However, it seems less than 2/3 understand that “posterity” implies grandchildren. “Freedom of religion,” which fellow citizens have no means to discipline, oppresses freedom to develop integrity.

Selected theme from this week

Lessening the “liberty” license

The quest for liberty expressed in the century from 1689 to 1789 emerged from Western license for bloodletting. By tradition, it constrains the U.S. from establishing psychological independence, even though physical independence was codified for the 13 eastern seaboard states, formerly British-American colonies, in the 1783 Treaty of Paris. The bloodletting began mildly with the 1689 English Revolution, expanded with the 1774 British American revolution against England, and became extreme in the 1789 French Revolution.

The U.S. in 1787 proposed public self-discipline of by and for the people so as to establish responsible human independence to its continuum of living citizens.

The preamble to the U.S. Constitution proposes 5 disciplines---integrity, justice, peace, strength, and prosperity---in order to encourage responsible human independence. Responsible human liberty seems as contradictory as “responsible human license”. The U.S. Preamble does not specify standards for either the five disciplines or for independence. However the proposition is constrained by the-literal-truth, which is discoverable by increasingly accurate and precise perception of the-objective-truth. Perhaps posterity’s posterity will discover the limits of statutory human justice.

Humans are uniquely, individually self-powered, self-energized, and self-authorized (HIPEA). Each can choose to employ HIPEA for either integrity or infidelity. Successful politics requires a society that practices human equity to develop statutory justice. Errant fellow citizens are encouraged to reform by amending written law-enforcement when injustice is discovered.

Reform cannot be accomplished by preserving British-American tradition. American originalism starts with the preamble to the U.S. Constitution and no one knows how successful discipline of by and for the citizens who develop We the People of the United States may be.

Columns

The Advocate is too immature to address the root of the problem (The Advocate) (https://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/opinion/our_views/article_c2401b30-8892-11ea-b248-3b40f97729fd.html)

The Advocate adolescently tries to saddle law enforcers with conflict that is imposed on them by unconstitutional provisions of the U.S. Constitution as purposed by its preamble. The Advocate ought to encourage deep civic integrity.

On March 4, 1789, Congress, representing 11 of 13 former British colonies, started erroneously legislating in the US. Since then, indolent generations of We the People of the United States devolved to the American republic’s present chaos.

First, Congress overcalled the framers’ balance of power with erroneously unlimited “freedom of the press.” I assert that press responsibility is to encourage and coach fellow citizens to develop the proposition that is stated in the preamble to the U.S. Constitution (the U.S. Preamble) in order to encourage responsible human independence among living citizens. In this case, The Advocate lamely whines to law enforcers “lock him up” when Congress unconstitutionally constrained the rule of law by adopting the First Amendment’s religion clauses: The U.S. Preamble does not include religion in the 5 public disciplines that encourage responsible human independence.

Second, with the religion clauses, Congress re-instituted by unconstitutional tradition the English, constitutional practice of Chapter XI Machiavellianism---the partnership of church with state that empowers the clergy and politicians to pick the people’s pockets with immunity from widespread rebellion or emigration. The generations since 1787 left it to this generation to establish the practice of the people’s proposition that is offered in the U.S. Preamble. We owe it to “our Posterity” to effect the reform from English tradition to constitutional American republicanism. Under civic integrity, it is every U.S. citizen’s duty to separate 1) hopes for their afterdeath and 2) fidelity to fellow citizens including family. Writers for the press are not exempt from this obligation.

The chaos exists because individuals wait for whatever-God-is or elected officials or the partnership of the two to cause responsible human independence. Experience and observations make it easy for the newborn human to discover that whatever is in control assigned responsible human independence to human individuals. To accept developing one’s person requires discovering that human beings have the individual power, the individual energy, and the individual authority (HIPEA) to choose either integrity to the-literal-truth or infidelity. HIPEA cannot be consigned.

Accepting human susceptibility to human-to-human sharing of deadly viruses, people who hope for the afterdeath they learned to prefer can also accept responsibility to their loved ones to worship in their closets when everyone knows that organizing to meet in public involves family activities that can effect viral transmission.

As I view it, the U.S. Preamble, using 1787 awareness and expressions, assigns public discipline to the people who want responsible human independence. The Advocate ought to know this or a better interpretation by now. Shame on them if they don’t start digging deeper into civic integrity.

Quora

https://www.quora.com/Is-there-such-a-thing-as-free-will-in-a-structured-civilized-society-with-legal-codes-and-statutes-Wouldnt-Hegels-philosophy-in-Phenomenology-of-Spirit-contradict-such-a-notion?

To your second question, maybe so, and it’s OK, in my opinion. Western Philosophy, such as Hegels’ book continues to bemuse American philosophical independence. His book "has been praised and blamed for the development of existentialism, communism, fascism, death of God theology, and historicist nihilism" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Phenomenology_of_Spirit). It seems in opposition to human, personal happiness: perhaps the opportunity to either define or accept whatever-God-is.

Addressing your first question, humankind is, like all species, subject to the evolution of physics and its progeny---including mathematics, chemistry, biology, psychology, and fiction. Only humankind has the awareness and grammar by which to develop personal equity under statutory justice. Civic citizens agree to develop written law-enforcement and continually reform discovered injustices so as to encourage dissidents to reform and thereby approach perfection: statutory justice.

This work is necessary because human beings have the individual power, the individual energy, and the individual authority (HIPEA) to develop either integrity to the-literal-truth or infidelity. The culture that encourages citizens to develop integrity accepts that some humans choose infidelity: infidels are nonetheless fellow citizens and are encouraged to reform. I know of no such culture.

However, acceptance and practice of the U.S. Preamble’s proposition by at least 2/3 of citizens according to their sincere interpretations offers an achievable better future by which such as culture might develop. The keys are that living citizens 1) consider the U.S. Preamble, discover its proposition voluntarily, and hold governments accountable and 2) the proposition offers no standards by which the practice may be judged. Tacitly, it posits that posterity’s posterity develops statutory justice.

Every citizen should own his or her personal interpretation of the U.S. Preamble and use it to order his or her civic, civil, and legal life, keeping spiritual pursuits private. I share my updated interpretation so that fellow citizens may offer improvements. My interpretation now is: We the People of the United States maintain 5 public disciplines----integrity, justice, peach, strength, and prosperity---so as to encourage responsible human independence to the continuum of living citizens. My interpretation, like the original U.S. Preamble, does not invoke God, because God is a private rather than civic, civil, or legal pursuit.

What matters to a human society such as We the People of the United States (as proposed in the U.S. Preamble) is development of statutory justice in human equity. What happens after each citizen’s body, mind, and person have stopped functioning is not the society’s interest. Unfortunately, past citizens have not established We the People of the United States. That’s a benefit to our generation, because we own the opportunity to encourage responsible human independence.

Ms. Barna, as you may imagine, I appreciate your creative questions in their combination and quora.com’s system that allowed you to direct the question to me. Every word in my response I wrote just now (excluding the URL and quote), yet I used phrases I have used many times before. For example, just now on Google Chrome I found 1060 results with the search “5 public disciplines”.

https://www.quora.com/Which-one-is-better-equality-or-inequality?

Is each human being unique? If so, no two persons are equal.

https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-minimum-number-of-people-required-to-participate-in-the-political-process-for-democracy-to-succeed?

There is no such system, because some humans use their individual power, individual energy, and individual authority (HIPEA) to negotiate an agreement they intend to break as soon as they think they can get away with it. In other words, they use their HIPEA to develop infidelity rather than integrity.

We know from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonestown#Survivors_and_eyewitnesses that revolutionary agreement is not 100% successful. Social democracy produces chaos. I think it’s easy to see that democracy is not a viable political process.

What’s required is a citizens’ agreement to practice the public disciplines that encourage responsible human independence. In other words, a society that maintains human equity under written law-enforcement while approaching statutory justice. The society of people who accept the agreement encourage dissidents by example, by exhortation, by coercion, by constraint, and by expulsion.

In the U.S., the people’s proposition for public discipline in order to encourage responsible human independence to living and future citizens is offered in the preamble to the U.S. Constitution for each citizen to consider, interpret, and either practice or invite encouragement to reform.

https://www.quora.com/Are-we-living-in-an-ideal-world-or-aiming-for-it?

The world is what it is. Humankind works to understand and take and encourage the self-discipline required for responsible human independence.

Since ancient Greek culture, we have had the suggestion that humans may develop individual equity under statutory justice.

The U.S. constitutional convention’s Committee of Style proposed, in my interpretation for 2020, 5 public disciplines to encourage responsible human independence to the continuum of living citizens. Past generations (about 12) left our generation the opportunity to practice the U.S. Preamble’s proposition in our self-interest and for our descendants among the coming generation.

When 2/3 of U.S. citizens personally work to establish their individual interpretation of the U.S. Preamble’s proposition as a means of ordering civic, civil, and legal living, while privately pursuing the afterdeath he or she wants, there will emerge an achievable better future.

However, statutory justice is a perfection that can only be approached, because evolution unfolds reality faster than humans discover the ineluctable evidence for the-literal-truth.

I hope my answer, Mr. Ireland, shows how much I appreciate both your creative question and http://quora.com’s system that allowed you to direct it to me.

My answer is original and uses phrases I have used before. For example, just now on Google Chrome I received 229 results with the search: "beaver"+"equity"+"statutory justice".

https://www.quora.com/unanswered/What-can-we-do-to-truly-make-people-feel-equal-It-breaks-my-heart-to-think-that-there-are-people-who-truly-believe-that-they-are-fundementally-unequal-There-has-to-be-something-I-can-do?

Thank you, Mr. Melancon, for a creative question and thanks to quora.com for enabling you to direct it to me. (Also, some Melancon’s near Baton Rouge, Louisiana are dear to my family.)

We can do the work to comprehend the discovered if not fully perceived ineluctable evidence for the-literal-truth.

For example, the psychologically mature human being started as a unique ovum in a unique woman’s womb and his or her individuality did not lessen at any point in the unlikely journey through life. To talk about human equality among the unique seems fruitless.

We can hope for the promises of our personal God while appreciating and reserving a little humility for whatever-God-is.

We can practice and advocate human equity under statutory justice. That is, the rule of continually improved written law-enforcement.

We can create or support a civic, civil, and legal agreement for the society we want. The proposal in the U.S. is stated in the U.S. Preamble, which each citizen may and ought-to interpret for his or her civic, civil, and legal life, leaving hopes for afterdeath as a private matter or none. The U.S. Preamble is a proposal for self-discipline of by and for the people so as to encourage responsible human independence to the continuum of living citizens.

I think this action or better by 2/3 of U.S. citizens would facilitate an achievable better future.

While this response to you, Mr. Melancon, is original, it employs phrase I have used before. For example, just now I found 179 results on Google Chrome using the search: Phil Beaver "ineluctable evidence".

https://www.quora.com/Do-you-believe-in-the-government-What-do-the-people-actually-control?

Yes, I believe in government, which is civic, civil, and legal leadership.

Specifically, I believe in representative legislation, administration, and judgement of civic, civil, and legal public discipline under the-literal-truth for the continuum of living citizens.

Regardless, each human being has the individual power, the individual energy, and the individual authority (HIPEA) to develop either integrity to the-literal-truth or infidelity. Those who develop infidelity remain fellow citizens but need to comprehend the self-interest of integrity. Government should encourage integrity rather than infidelity by promoting self-discipline of by and for the people.

Ms. Tuttle, I appreciate your creative question, your decision to ask me, and quora.com for facilitating the dialogue. My response is original, written just now, even though some of the phrases I have used before. For example, just now the Google Chrome search Phil Beaver "civic integrity" received about 477 URLs. Thank you for motivating me to think.

https://www.quora.com/Which-would-you-choose-to-live-in-individual-oriented-society-or-group-oriented-society-if-you-have-to-choose-either-one?

I want to live in one and only one society I am aware of: the society whose individuals pursue human equity under statutory justice. Statutory justice is perfect written law-enforcement, which is the worthy human goal. Equity admits that every human ovum is unique, and as physics and its progeny have it, few ova are conceived and mature to psychological adulthood. Dissident fellow citizens and inhabitants are civically, civilly, and legally encouraged to reform by example, by exhortation, by coercion, by force, and by expulsion.

The basic principle is human equity under statutory justice, and my interpretation of the U.S. Preamble expresses a similar purpose as responsible human independence. I substitute “independence” for “liberty” because of liberty’s history of controversial bloodletting. The worst case I know of is “Bleeding Kansas” expanding unto the Civil War. Slave-state inhabitants thought slave-abolitionists were influence by a more erroneous religious opinion (see the Declaration of Session) and therefore attacked their country, the USA.

My brief interpretation of the U.S. Preamble this morning is: We the People of the United States maintain 5 public disciplines in order to encourage responsible human independence to the continuum of living citizens. I write to improve my interpretation and would appreciate yours, Akihiro Omichi and others. If the society of We the People of the United States exists, it an unfortunately small faction of citizens. I speculate that 2/3 of inhabitants should own an interpretation of the U.S. Preamble and use it to order their civic, civil, and legal lives, pursuing religion only if it helps them in civic integrity. There may be a better political proposition but I have not read it.

Thank you for directing your creative question to me. What’s your preference?

Also, please note that this morning’s writing is original. But it uses ideas I have written or spoken before in many times and places. For example, this Google search on Chrome this morning produced four URLs and a photo of my wife and me: Phil Beaver "2/3 of inhabitants". Please pick a phrase that interests you and try a search.

I appreciate quora.com for providing you, Omichi, and me an opportunity to freely dialogue for a better future.

https://www.quora.com/unanswered/What-do-you-think-society-would-be-like-if-it-used-only-informal-sanctions-to-enforce-norms?

Mr. Morgan, your question is motivating, and let it be known that you introduced me to “informal sanctions.” Thank you. My first thought is that society would be as it is now---in chaos.

One first must address the question: what is society? That’s perhaps the first uncertainty. I think society is that faction of humankind that behaves to develop personal equity with statutory justice. “Equity” begins with the human ovum, which has minuscule chance to become a mature human being. To become a human being, the newborn must at some point accept being human and develop his or her person. “Statutory justice” is the perfection of written law, which can only be approached by the faction of people who intend human justice. “Human justice,” in self-interest, admits to not knowing whatever-God-is.

On first encounter, “informal sanctions” seems another express of tolerance. Erroneous “tolerance” is the unfortunate opposite of intolerance, an excellent practice. Practicing tolerance, a person assumes the higher opinion and placates the other party until he or she matures into agreement. It’s a form of hubris that isolates the tolerant person such that examination of ineluctable evidence is simply avoided. For example, the student may perceive in the Holy Bible evidence of whatever-God-is, yet cannot collect the ineluctable evidence for whatever-God-is. At least, I could not.

I think society needs “to consider, communicate, collaborate, and connect to practice 5 public disciplines: integrity, justice, peace, strength, and prosperity so as to encourage both living fellow citizens and future citizens to take advantage of responsible human independence.” I am quoting my interpretation of the U.S. Preamble, which defines a U.S. society that never developed: We the People of the United States. My interpretation is continually improved and maintained on my blog. I want to improve my statement of public discipline by listening to other citizens and their interpretations yet would preserve the original, 1787, text, unless it is amended by the society We the People of the United States.

As far as I know, this exchange, inspired by your question, establishes legal defense of your intellectual property and my response including the quotation of my continually improving ideas. Anyone who would question our dialogue would need to reference this digital document and its written text.

Returning to your question, in the middle of my eight decade, I cannot recall one human connection from which I benefited from the other party’s tolerance. The human being is so powerful he or she uses his or her individual power, individual energy, and individual authority (HIPEA) to pursue the happiness he or she perceives until ineluctable evidence causes reform for self-interest. For example, integrity seems better than infidelity. The fellow citizen who does not present ineluctable evidence cannot express reform opportunity to a fellow citizen. Convincing expression is clear, concise, reliable, and appreciates the listener’s person.

I write to learn and hope you, Mr. Morgan, and perhaps other fellow citizens will comment on my post.

https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-difference-between-human-rights-from-1789-and-1949?

Apparently, quora.com sent this message to me. There is no copyright in the question, which inspired my answer in words and phrases I am accustomed to. There is no burden on me to produce the records of my usage since I did not copyright then, either. In other words, my prior posts are public information.

As to the question, there are three entities involved in assessing rights: human integrity, laws (whether statutory and just or not), and desires. I will address only the first.

Every human being has the individual power, the individual energy, and the individual authority (HIPEA) to develop either integrity to the-literal-truth or infidelity. The opportunity to choose integrity is a human right that can be neither denied nor consigned.

I think my opinion held from the beginning until 1789, through 1949, and will hold tomorrow.

Anyone who wants can ignore my posts, just as I can ignore questions posted. Also, the managers can reject my participation. However, I think humankind needs free expression.

Law professors

https://lawliberty.org/why-i-am-not-an-originalist/

It seems to me both sides ignore what is made plain to fellow citizens. First, each is desperate for arbitrary power and one would suggest secession (again). Second, one side would use the lame “We the People” to suggest modernity and the other would use “benefits” not as taking advantage of integrity but to empower whatever-God-is---whether it be “Almighty God” (First Virginia Charter, 1606) or “Nature’s God” (Declaration of Independence, 1776) or “more erroneous religious beliefs” (Declaration of Secession, 1860). Experience and observations make it plain that statutory human justice is the responsibility, in the US, of We the People of the United States as defined in the preamble to the U.S. Constitution (the U.S. Preamble). Civic people pursue equity under civic integrity.

As I interpret the U.S. Preamble, here’s a blatant falsehood: “The American Constitution, a fascist constitution, it’s all the same to an originalist.” The originalist makes his or her case, and it’s up to We the People of the United States to discover and codify responsible human independence, appreciating the originalist as a fellow citizen. Not every fellow citizen wants to be of We the People of the United States.

“. . . the rule of law means that it can’t be all politics. Instead, we must seek some neutral ground between a false originalism that at its core is politically right-wing and the left-liberalism of recent Supreme Court jurisprudence.” That middle ground is statutory justice based on the-literal-truth that is continually pursued by “ourselves and our Posterity.”

Statutory justice is perfect constitutional law, which is not attainable. Yet posterity’s posterity will approach statutory justice if our generation will establish a civic, civil, and legal culture under the U.S. Preamble’s people’s proposition.

I got the message, “Your comment has been automatically approved and posted.” So far, I have not seen it.

https://lawliberty.org/book-review/markets-populism-and-a-fading-american-dream/

“But it is failure to deal with political problems like cronyism that create opportunities for people pushing measures like industrial policy which only accentuate crony behavior.”

I can’t imagine a more creative hint that only one society---We the People of the United States--- can hold government accountable, for example, to constrain/prevent crony behavior.

“If you want to persuade Americans about the economic and political case for economic liberty, the message of “universal-peace-and-love-through-free-trade” . . . which often prevails in free market circles is precisely the wrong language to use.”

“Economic liberty” seems too much like license for un-civically taking. Adding “responsible” only clouds crony license. I suggest “responsible economic independence.” Thereby, a citizen can earn his or her lifestyle, commit to monogamy for life, appreciate his or her children as persons, and accumulate wealth (save and invest) for retirement while maintaining civic integrity.

Americans may free themselves from the chains of “liberty.” Liberty was an object of the English Revolution of 1689, the American Revolution of 1774, and the French Revolution of 1789, all drawing blood. However, the 1787 proposal to terminate the confederation of 1784’s 13 free and independent states, formerly British-American colonies, would establish the world’s first global nation predicated on public discipline of by and for the people, no blood needed.

The 5 public disciplines and individual purpose are stated in the preamble. In my interpretation: We the People of the United States maintain 5 public disciplines---integrity, justice, peace, strength, and prosperity---in order to secure responsible human independence to living and future citizens.

“. . . if more expansive arguments of this nature are not made and further supplemented with deep normative content, I have no doubt that market liberals will lose their case in the court of public opinion, whatever the facts.”

A deep subtlety in the U.S. Preamble is that it contains no normative suggestions. It tacitly leaves it to posterity’s posterity to determine how well We the People of the United States ultimately develops the 5 disciplines for responsible human independence. It seems self-evident that whatever-God-is assigns the 5 disciplines and the purpose to the society of civic citizens, and their social decisions are based on the ineluctable evidence they work to discover.

Deep appreciation for the U.S. Preamble’s proposition as each citizen interprets it for himself or herself promises an achievable better future, and it can be accelerated by widespread sharing. I write to improve my interpretation by listening to fellow citizens.

Note to the owners: My comments, upon submittal, have recently received the message ““Your comment has been automatically approved and posted.” However, so far, I cannot read my posts, except on my blog.

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.

Saturday, April 25, 2020

Arbitrarily interfering in civic expression

1. There is no way to civically appeal to the editor’s silence.

2. My letter might be rejected because the space had been used, trashing the civic concern I addressed.

3. The Advocate reserves the right to caption letters to the editor and may slant the expression.

4. The editor may publish a letter to take advantage of error by the writer.

5. Journalists hold themselves possessing opinion better than opinions of fellow citizens.

6. Letters to the editor is part of the business plan more than a public service.

7. Freedom of the press does not imply published freedom of reader expression.

8. Most press writers and editors do not consider journalism a civic/civil responsibility.

9. No one has the intentions to journal the path by We the People of the United States toward civic integrity. Under the First Amendment, journalists should take that role, but there are no journalists.

10. The writer who wants to learn from writing to the editor ought to keep a file of the submissions and rejections. There will be no notes on shared reasons for the rejections.

11. Given the chance to redress an editor’s civic arrogance, a fellow citizen should do so.

Starting April, 2020, I think I have noticed a new arrogance by internet-media. Some media have civic/civil rules for using their site. Some invite public questions and answers. A person who submits questions or answers or both may suffer arbitrary judgment of expressions. Often there’s more copyright value in the question than in the responses. There may be an avenue for review, but there’s no arbitration. Users, beware.

News

Writers for the press ought to be journaling the path by We the People of the United States toward civic integrity (John Simerman) (https://www.nola.com/news/courts/article_e446e44e-35f3-11ea-8b1c-8705ca5b3db9.html)

I look forward to reviewing the decision.

Much as I regret it, though, I must accept this travesty against responsible human independence. (Liberty is a failure due to some fellow citizens taking it as license, often to draw a fellow-citizen’s blood. When the mob is marching for liberty, I want independence.)

Organized crime won this case against the 6th amendment, which requires impartially rather than unanimity. Maybe after my lifetime the whole country will reform to split verdicts like this 6:3 opinionated outcome: 2/3 is a good target for opinion, and 2/3, like Louisiana's vote, may not touch the-objective-truth.

Columns

U.S. Constitutional facts flawed by judicial preservation of colonial-English-American opinion (The Advocate) (https://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/opinion/our_views/article_df64b01c-83de-11ea-963c-7349989ab418.html)

Perhaps with temporal defeat of Louisiana’s U.S. leadership in providing impartial juries, We the People of the United States, as defined in the preamble to the U.S. Constitution, may observe the tyranny of the U.S. Supreme Court. Some justices are emotional for originalism, common law, and precedent as they see it. Their precedent selections often oppose the 5 goals and the purpose of the U.S. Preamble. Many justices have no individual interpretation of the preamble and therefore never established personal U.S. integrity.

Also, it is egregious for the Court to accept 1889 instead of 1880 as the date Louisiana enacted prudent 9:3 criminal jury decisions; https://www.wwno.org/post/history-louisianas-non-unanimous-jury-rule. The likely French influence on the 1880 enactment of 9:3 verdicts as a means of providing impartial verdicts was precedent to the inflammatory 1898 Louisiana convention.

It is statistically unlikely with divided inhabitants to select an impartial jury of 12. Most citizens, divided 51:49, do not accept that they 1) are human beings and 2) are obliged to pursue equity under statutory human justice (an unattainable yet worthy perfection of written law).

The Supreme Court accepts 5:4 decisions to maintain judicial preferences for opinionated facts. Sometimes the dissenting opinions lean more toward the-objective-truth. It’s ironic that a majority vote of 6:3 imposes on Louisiana citizens the requirement of unjust unanimity, 12:0, when U.S. Amendment XIV.1 assures them the U.S. will protect citizens in states from, for example, Louisiana Legislative tyranny. The Legislature should not have proposed defeat of Louisiana’s precedent provision of impartial juries by popular vote. Ramos v Louisiana seems a candidate for immediate reversal.

Here’s the history in my view. The England & France period 1689 through 1789 saw 3 bloodletting revolutions ---the English Civil Revolution of 1689, the American independence from England of 1774, and the French Civil Revolution of 1789---all 3 seeking “liberty” as the license to draw political blood. (Yorktown, VA, 1781, was an England vs France battlefield with the Continental Army assisting France.) As license, liberty is a ruinous activity. When the mob aggresses, I want the independence to object if they are not practicing civic, civil, and legal integrity. Nine states ratified the U.S. in 1788.

During the Constitutional Convention of 1787, framers (55) debated and signers (39) approved a proposition for disciplined citizens to hold accountable the fellow citizens who serve/exist in each their state and the national governments. Religious pursuits were private rather than civic, civil, or legal duties. Some of the 16 delegates who did not sign objected to “We the People of the United States” rather than the 13 named states as the entity with the responsibility for human independence. Some others would recognize whatever-God-is (Nature’s God to deists or the Trinity to Christians except Unitarians or African-American Christians).

If states beyond the 13 former English colonies joined the U.S., their diverse thinking would strengthen the preamble’s purpose: pursuit of statutory justice in the Union. Louisiana, influenced by Napoleonic code, joined in 1812. Defending my interpretation of the U.S. Preamble is a matter for another essay, but on May 29, 1787, the Delegate Edmund Randolph used “blessings” to mean “advantages” of a Union rather than divine license; “to p[ro]cure to the several States various blessings, of which an isolated situation was i[n]capable.” See https://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/farrand-the-records-of-the-federal-convention-of-1787-vol-1. Thus, “blessings” ought not be attributed to whatever-God-is.

The U.S. Preamble proposes the development of statutory justice by the continuum of living citizens, ultimately by posterity’s posterity. Fellow citizens who do not consider citizenship deeply enough to comprehend their personal interpretation of the preamble risk losing the opportunity to enjoy responsible human independence. That especially includes justices and politicians whose agenda is alien to the U.S. Preamble’s proposition. For example, a citizen whose civic, civil, or legal allegiance is dedicated to religion or race or gender is not of We the People of the United States. When the President nominates an originalist for the Supreme Court, it is likely the nominee has a negative if any interpretation of the U.S. Preamble.

Language The Advocate promotes here---common law, precedent, imposition of unanimity as impartiality---covertly favors “originalism” as English law overriding the U.S. Preamble and the legal system proposed in order to sustain its 5 public disciplines for responsible human independence.

Shame on both The Advocate and he U.S. Supreme Court for imposing English precedent to divide U.S. citizens. We’ll see how the 6:3 vote turns out. Because the 3:6 dissenters made their case, I think posterity’s posterity will overrule.

Quora

https://www.quora.com/What-is-it-about-politics-that-causes-such-discord-even-within-families?

First, let me say that I am inspired by your question, Melissa Jackson, and anyone who would stand between your civic concern and my response seems a tyrant. I am writing from my life experiences, observations, and assessment of them as I see it this morning. Some things I write I wrote before but for different purposes and have records of them on my blogs.

To your question: Unfortunately, past political regimes have taken advantage of the human characteristic of taking integral responsibility for their lives by misguiding people who do not accept being human. “Integral” implies complete integrity rather than mere honesty. Being human involves a nest of acceptances.

Here’s a list of acceptances that come to mind just now, and each one can be unpacked/refuted according to your experiences and observations. Accepting being human requires accepting:

1. Human individual power, energy, and authority (HIPEA) to develop integrity rather than infidelity to the-literal-truth. When not knowing the-literal-truth, the person admits and claims, “I don’t know.”

2. Beyond personal authority the human being reserves humility toward whatever-God-is rather than imposes evaluations such as “Nature’s God,” “The Almighty,” the good, love, “The Judge of the World,” and such.

3. Human dignity and equity begins with the viable ova a fertile woman carries. She has the HIPEA to care for her viable ova, for example, selecting a reliable mate for monogamy for life. Her mate has the HIPEA to be reliable for life.

4. Together, spouses nourish-family reliability to descendants---to their posterity.

5. The human individual, by experience and observations, has the opportunity to enter a civic agreement to develop human independence with civic integrity; in other words, individual equity under statutory justice. Developing statutory justice involves encouraging fellow citizens who employ HIPEA to develop infidelity such as crime or tyranny to reform.

6. In the U.S., a civic agreement that offers the above way of living is proposed in the preamble to the U.S. Constitution. It is in the U.S. citizen’s self-interest to earn a personal interpretation of the preamble so as to develop it toward individual happiness with civic integrity among fellow citizens.

7. Unfortunately, some people observe that life is so challenging that some fellow citizens treat civic integrity by neglect. After some 2-3 million years of evolution, cultures have evolved wherein the few who are willing to govern abuse fellow citizens who prefer being governed to doing the work to hold government agents accountable. Methods of abusing fellow citizens were enumerated by Nicolo Machiavelli in “The Prince,” 1213. The type of abuse conducted by tradition in the U.S. I refer to as Chapter XI Machiavellianism. See https://www.constitution.org/mac/prince11.htm for your own interpretation.

Principles equal or better than these may be developed by the 2020 generation of U.S. citizens. We have this privilege due to neglect by the generations since September 17, 1787. I write to learn, so please comment.

https://www.quora.com/How-would-you-describe-decolonization-in-your-own-words-How-would-you-characterize-it?

To decolonize, a people must each 1) accept being human, 2) agree to independence from the government that colonized them, 3) accept that whatever-God-is seems to have assigned civic integrity to humankind, and 4) propose a system of governance that encourages responsible human independence rather than liberty. Liberty is too often taken as license to damage fellow citizens’ property or kill them. When the masses are taking license I want the independence to effectively object.

Taking the U.S. for example, it seems possible that the land was colonized by the Catholic Church in competition with factional European Protestantism dominated by The Church of England, a reformed Catholic religion. The Christian Churches competed under the doctrine of discovery, ostensibly to benefit God and his son Jesus. Ecclesiastical domination is described in irony by Machiavelli in “The Prince,” and I refer to it as Chapter XI Machiavellianism: https://www.constitution.org/mac/prince11.htm. I work (dream) to change this U.S. practice.

The preamble to the U.S. Constitution proposes 5 public disciplines that do not include religion. When Congress imposed freedom of theism beginning March 4, 1789, they had no authority to do so according to the U.S. Preamble’s 5 public goals to encourage responsible human independence.

The framers and signers had rejected a proposal for daily prayer during the Philadelphia convention and published statutory law that made exclusion of Chapter XI Machiavellianism clear. However, states that ratified the 1787 constitution did so with the stipulation that the First Congress would amend it to include a Bill of Rights. The First Amendment egregiously protects religion, an institution, rather than integrity, a personal and public duty.

Fortunately, Congress did not amend the U.S. Preamble. The perhaps 12 generations since then have neglected the preamble, leaving our generation the privilege of holding U.S. governments---local, state, and national---accountable to whatever-God-is first and We the People of the United States second.

To decolonize the U.S. requires acceptance of the U.S. Preamble’s proposition as posterity’s posterity interprets it.

These are my ideas, and anyone who accuses me of plagiarism needs to present the evidence. Also, I am responding to Damien Webb’s creative question that he directed to me. Anyone who would interfere in that communication is welcome to do so at the expense of my participation in this forum.

https://www.quora.com/What-type-of-achievement-provided-you-the-longest-duration-of-happiness?

Choosing to accept that I am a human being has led to deeper human acceptances.

https://www.quora.com/How-do-you-resolve-a-conflict-when-both-sides-are-right?

Could you be asking a hypothetical question without the hypothesis?

What’s your hypothetical?

Here’s one: A person with a gun threatens a man who seems vulnerable. The apparently vulnerable man says “One more move toward harming me, and you will die.” The aggressor says “OK, I surrender,” and offers the gun, because he or she is convinced of the man’s strength in defense. So the man was right to show his strength and the potential aggressor was right to accept it.

Here’s another: A devout person says, “My God will defeat your God in battle.” The second devout person responds, “I doubt it, because both your God and my God conform to whatever-God-is. History shows that in war the side with military strength by numbers and strategy dominate.”

For example, the American Civil War was by white-Christian slave-state inhabitants who thought white-Christian slavery abolitionists were evil and attacked them. Both sides prayed to the same Christian God, but imposed their opinion on the God, with no humility toward whatever-God-is. At the time of the attack, the abolitionists could have discussed their military strength (27 states against 7 states) and cited the mutual commitment to the Union of states in perpetuity. Instead, they chose war. Both sides were wrong to count on their arrogance over whatever-God-is and both sides lost.

Please note, Sun Kim: I have applied many of my thoughts from the past to your creative question.

https://www.quora.com/Why-does-the-institution-of-marriage-exist?

Marriage, in my view, is an attempt to resolve the dilemma of male heterophobia.

Through physical and psychological nature (derived from the same source according to my view of Albert Einstein’s obscure expressions about human nature), men and women are mutually attracted and have distinct obligations. The man who acts on physical instincts may fear life-time commitment to the woman who tentatively trusts him and un-civically pursue intimacy anyway. He may suffer heterophobia, the fear of the lifetime self-interest of marriage. The authentic man will not threaten a woman’s viable ovum, even if she is willing.

The fertile woman will produce a potential crowd: about 400 viable ova. Grammar and awareness inform most women and many accept that they have responsibilities to both themselves and their viable ova. Thus, a woman maintains her physical and psychological wellbeing with two motives: self-interest and care for her ova. In that regard, she seeks a mate who will trust-in and commit-to monogamy for life with three motives: self-interest, fidelity to his mate, and fidelity to their children and descendants. Yet, when in her judgement she has found an authentic man, she wants intimacy with him. The couple are reminded of monogamy for life through the marriage ceremony.

Unfortunately, traditional marriage ceremonies focus on sanctity, obscuring integrity. Both bride and groom express vows for reasons other than monogamy for life. Other entrepreneurs create worse immoralities, and I will leave them to the imagination.

My response to Lawson Shepherd’s inspiring question is mine and anyone who would question my sincerity or Shepherd’s intentions in selecting me ought to cite grounds for the aggression.

https://www.quora.com/Noam-Chomsky-stated-We-shouldnt-be-looking-for-heroes-we-should-be-looking-for-good-ideas-Is-Noam-Chomsky-correct?

I think so, and Chomsky should not be chastised for expressing an old idea and not documenting the references.

For example, Plato has Socrates asking if whatever-God-is is acclaimed for justice or if appreciation of justice is sufficient? Of course, that’s only my application of Plato’s claim about Socrates after I benefitted from Albert Einstein’s claim that physics with its family of research comes from the same source as justice. (I think that may be the most accurate way I have stated my application of “science” and “ethics” as I think Einstein used them, so far.)

In another example, few modern scholars consider Agathon to have the better argument in Plato’s “Sympoium.” In my application, again, benefitting from Einstein, I assert that Agathon suggested that a civic citizen neither initiates nor tolerates harm to or from any person or human association.

The civic citizen exercises human individual power, energy, and authority (HIPEA) commensurate with the aggression of the other party. Normally, yes/no is sufficient. I owe neither Plato nor Agathon nor Einstein for my application of their ideas, primarily because they are not obligated to my applications of their ideas.

Likewise, I am not obligated to you, Graham Lindsay for you sharing your question nor need I question its sources or prior presentation. Neither am I obligated to allow quora.com to discourage me from responding with my all in this moment to what I view as your worthy, provocative question.

Anyone who wants to stonewall my work is welcome to do so: A closed door is my opportunity to knock elsewhere. (That’s why I dropped out of religious practice, for example.)

Law professors

https://lawliberty.org/the-honesty-of-originalism/

Borrowing words from Stephen L. Carter, honesty is insufficient: what developers of statutory justice need is integrity.

At stake in civic, civil, and legal discipline is acceptance of both 1) words as they are written and 2) the-literal-truth that has been discovered since the words were written. In integrity, the position an uninformed civic citizen takes is “I don’t know” rather than an opinion with no supporting evidence let alone ineluctable evidence.

In a civic culture, questionable opinion is not defended as tradition. Precedence does not trump ineluctable evidence. For example, everyone knows what “God” means, and few accept that the perhaps humble phrase “whatever-God-is” offers integrity more than honesty.

The system said my comment was automatically approved and posted.

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.