Appreciation more powerful than love?

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

Appreciation

Much is being written these days about love. However, love in any of its forms is often unwanted, sometimes on all accounts.

Often, people prefer privacy. However, I am not aware of times when appreciation is not appropriate. I’m listening for suggestions.

Columns

Maybe The Advocate never owned a U.S. company stock lost in bankruptcy due to intellectual property theft by China (The Advocate) (https://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/opinion/our_views/article_046965c0-9397-11ea-8587-fb7ead072364.html)

Maybe The Advocate is naïve to intellectual property (IP). By being quick to sell your stock, you can minimize loss when an American company gives their IP to China or sees China steal it. But the long-term lesson makes U.S. stock-ownership onerous. Index-funds help but not enough. Thank goodness President Trump is addressing China’s IP aggression. It’s modern warfare.

Of course, I think The Advocates’ social democracy and blind aversion to responsible human independence is their standard attitude. A prime example is The Advocate’s failure to appreciate 5:4 judiciary verdicts and failure to promote restoration of a Louisiana treasure: the 1880s 9:3 citizens-jury verdict.

I doubt anyone on The Advocate staff owns a personal interpretation of the U.S. Preamble’s civic, civil, and legal proposition by which they order their civic living and spiritual hopes. If some do, I’d like to read the interpretations in The Advocate.

Taking the U.S. Preamble seriously may begin with comprehending “ourselves and our Posterity” as the continuum of living citizens. In other words, as “our posterity” to the 1787 generation our families are “ourselves” to the coming generation. American families are neglecting their grandchildren and beyond. My brief U.S. Preamble interpretation (for criticism by fellow citizens) is:  We the People of the United States promote and practice 5 public disciplines---integrity, justice, peace, strength, and prosperity---in order to encourage responsible human independence to living citizens.

Maybe it could be on the list of things to do before June 21 to commemorate the 1788 ratification of the U.S. Preamble’s replacement of the Confederation of 13 eastern-seaboard former British-American colonies with 9 states under civic, civil, and legal discipline of by and for the citizens. Today, there are 50 states and 6 territories and the entity We the People of the United States is repressed by widespread failure to hold fellow citizens in government offices to accountability to the U.S. Preamble’s proposition.

A civic people could start by amending the First Congress’s egregious error of granting absolute “freedom of the press,” when the U.S. Preamble’s framers had designed government functions that are limited by the Constitution. In other words, the states, Congress, the presidency, and the courts each have limited powers. But not the press. We the People of the United States can demand reform of the First Amendment.

I think individual appreciation is sufficient and never unwanted (Nathan Ryan) (https://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/opinion/letters/article_5f0da268-9142-11ea-9fa9-3f78c02e7b37.html)

I stay home except when I need food, a doctor for me or a family member, or need medicine not mailed to us. I wear a mask, elbow touch, wash hands often, take shoes off at the door, wear clean clothes, bathe, and shave. I feel the losses and pain I learn about and appreciate fellow citizens who supply public essentials.

Erroneous, proprietary writer (George Will) (https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-1619-project-is-filled-with-slovenliness-and-ideological-ax-grinding/2020/05/05/4a91c868-8f04-11ea-9e23-6914ee410a5f_story.html)

Writers for the press seem unable to interpret ineluctable evidence as facts. In this case, preservation of colonial British-American-traditional Chapter-XI-Machiavellianism under locally preferred Christian God overrides the 1787 proposal for civic discipline of by and for U.S. citizens: the preamble to the U.S. Constitution.

Competitive Christianity is central to press-writers’ failure to journal We the People of the United States in its quest for responsible human independence, derailed in March, 1789 by the first Congress.

As U.S. founding, 1619 is indeed proprietarily prostituted (meretricious), but so is 1774: the revolution for American liberty is not the U.S. civic-integrity proposal of 1787. Factually, 39/55 representatives of 12/13 former British-American colonies proposed the United States under discipline of by and for the people on September 17, 1787. British-American tradition may ultimately give way to the U.S. proposition.

Meanwhile, some of the 16 dissidents to the 1787 Constitution helped 1789 Congress re-establish the traditional, factional-American-Protestant-church-and-state to compete with England’s constitutional reformed-Catholic seats in Parliament. Congress would be as “divine” as Parliament, at the people’s expense (Machiavelli XI).

To outdo the Times’s errant project, Will tries to establish authority using erroneous-scholar’s 3 selective histories. First, some ignore the September 6, 1774 permanent liberation of Worcester MA to cite the scholarly April 1775 insurrection at Lexington–Concord, 7 months later. See https://www.massar.org/2013/01/23/setting-the-record-straight-the-worcester-revolt-of-september-6-1774/. The purpose is to falsely cite 1776 as the U.S. founding. Second, none suggest that Lincoln accepted war rather than diplomatically resolving the South’s “great political error with the sanction of more erroneous [Christian] belief [in slavery].” See https://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_scarsec.asp. It’s hard to imagine the American political writer who is unaware of famous abolitionists such as Thomas Paine in 1775 and Benjamin Franklin in Philadelphia or of Bleeding Kansas in 1856. Third, and most egregiously, many scholars pit so called “founders” against the 55 framers of the U.S. Constitution and moreover the 39 signers, leaving 16 dissenters against civic, civil, and legal discipline of by and for the people. World history and not just 1776 impacted the framers’ excellence and the signers’ triumph. The 13 former colonies’ Declaration of Independence from England, with its assertion that kings are first fellow citizens developing statutory integrity does not override the U.S. Constitution’s proposition for independent civic, civil, and legal justice in the U.S. based on the ineluctable evidence for justice.

Most egregiously, scholars do not consider the Civil War as aggression by fellow citizens who believed slavery is the will of their Christian God against citizens who believed abolition is the will of their Christian God. Surely, in addition to the Declaration of Secession they read R.E. Lee’s letter to his wife in December 1857 citing the Christian evil of abolitionists. See https://leefamilyarchive.org/9-family-papers/783-robert-e-lee-to-mary-anna-randolph-custis-lee-1857-march-13. Again, President Lincoln could have appreciated Frederick Douglass’s reliability and been diplomatically against war by saying that the sides each prayed to a different Christian God with no humility reserved for whatever-God-is. Instead, Lincoln relied on the free-state military odds, 27:7, in February, 1861. Once a citizen considers these historical observations, opinions of Lincoln and King pale before the indictment of civic, civil, or legal Christianity.

Lastly, Will cannot look to George Orwell for clues about whatever-God-is. It seems self-evident that “Who [manipulates] the past [begs future woe]: who controls the present [may choose integrity rather than infidelity].”

Writers for the press can lead fellow citizens in a nest of individual acceptances: I am a human being, potentially a member of the earth’s most power species; it takes 2 to 3 decades of more for an infant to transition into a young adult with intent and comprehension to be a person; it takes another 4 or more decades work for a young person to transition into a psychologically mature adult; to benefit from the observations and experiences of fellow citizens, each individual must consider, communicate, collaborate, and connect to encourage responsible human independence; the person’s individual power, energy, and authority to develop integrity or avoid infidelity is not consignable.

Quora

https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-ultimate-goal-of-happiness-that-a-society-should-pursue?

The U.S. Preamble proposes, in my view, 5 public disciplines in order to encourage responsible human independence to living citizens. It offers no standards or norms for either the 5 disciplines or the purpose: individual happiness with civic integrity.

Based on results since 1787, the entity We the People of the United States, as defined in the preamble seems an isolated society. With 2/3 of citizens actively ordering civic life under the preamble, individual happiness might seem achievable.

https://www.quora.com/Is-it-really-necessary-to-change-the-current-educational-paradigm?

Yes. For decades education has focused on educators rather than the nation’s children.

Education should encourage children to accept a nest of responsibilities: being human, acquiring the understanding and intent to live a complete human life, having inspiration and motivation while reserving sufficient humility toward whatever-God-is, accepting a civic agreement to develop human equity under statutory justice, and understanding that a civic citizen neither initiates nor tolerates harm to or from any person or institution.

Along with these principles, education systems ought to help students comprehend existing knowledge and prepare to think during exponential discovery by humankind during their adulthood.

https://www.quora.com/The-world-does-not-revolve-around-any-of-us-as-individuals-so-why-do-people-tend-to-think-they-are-more-important-than-others?

Another view is that while the world does not revolve around the individual, the individual does and the collection of individuals makes up the world. In other words, individuals hold their persons as more important to them than the world’s importance.

Tolerance is an unfortunate antonym. I often respond to a person who thinks they are tolerating me with the assertion, “My opinion is more important to me than your opinion about me.” Tolerance is perhaps the most arrogant posture I have encountered. When I am merely intolerant of the other party rather than wanting to converse, I change the topic to the weather, sports, or music.

I am an especially unwanted conversationalist, because I want to promote citizens’ interest in establishing the preamble to the U.S. Constitution. Its proposition is 5 public disciplines in order to encourage responsible human independence to living citizens. To me, the U.S. Preamble is the individual’s most promising political sentence.

https://www.quora.com/Do-you-think-we-have-the-political-class-we-deserve?

If by “we” you mean citizens of the United States, I think so and work for an achievable better future. Not enough U.S. citizens do the work to own a personal interpretation of the nation’s stated purpose and therefore many citizens live here but have no civic stake. Consequently, someone else dictates the happiness they can pursue.

The preamble to the U.S. Constitution, in my view, propose 5 public disciplines in order to encourage responsible human independence to living citizens. The proposition leaves standards for the disciplines as well as the purpose, human independence, to posterity’s posterity.

So far, political regimes have unconstitutionally imposed Chapter XI Machiavellianism to suppress the preamble’s civic, civil, and legal powers. By considering themselves too busy living to develop civic citizenship, most people leave it to whatever-God-is and government to order living. The consequence is that many people accept the happiness the church-government-partnership imposes on them when they could accept being human and responsibly pursuing the happiness they want.

I work continuously to persuade people, primarily U.S. fellow citizens, to own a most precious property: a personal interpretation of the U.S. Preamble’s proposition.

https://www.quora.com/What-are-the-risks-in-running-the-affairs-of-your-society-If-there-is-what-will-you-do-to-resolve-it?

By “your society” do you mean my Louisiana non-profit, non-revenue foundation: A Civic People of the United States?

It is a voluntary, grass-roots effort that uses only on-line communications and public meetings at libraries. I (perhaps naively) think the idea is so good it will go viral on its own. When that happens, the officials it needs to implement the practice will step forward and volunteer.   

The idea is that the U.S. Preamble proposes 5 public disciplines by which living citizens may practice responsible human independence. In other words, it proposes self-discipline of by and for the people. There are no standards for the 5 disciplines or for human independence, so posterity’s posterity may discover or define them.

I like to think of this as an American dream but that the idea is so attractive it will manage itself through Facebook and other forums.

https://www.quora.com/What-are-the-core-principles-of-free-will?

The human being has the individual power, the individual energy, and the individual authority (HIPEA) to develop either integrity or infidelity. It does not take many experiences and observations for a person to observe that things go better with integrity. People with the will to self-discipline develop as they choose---mastering either integrity or infidelity. Some people observe that integrity is in personal self-interest, but lack the discipline to reform from infidelity.

I think accepting being human, developing HIPEA, and choosing self-discipline are required for free-will.

https://www.quora.com/Present-knowledge-is-wholly-dependent-on-past-knowledge-Do-you-agree?

“Wholly” seems absolute, preventing spontaneous discovery:  I do not agree.

https://www.quora.com/In-50-words-or-less-what-should-the-government-perform-or-do-for-a-country?

The government should encourage responsible human independence to living citizens through 5 public disciplines: integrity, justice, peace, strength, and prosperity. This reflects my interpretation of the preamble to the U.S. Constitution.

Tom Carey

Just curious why you qualified the answer with the word “living”?

I liked the answer.

Phil Beaver

You express astute appreciation of words. Thank you.

The object of the U.S. Preamble is “ourselves and our Posterity,” following the subject, “We the People of the United States,” or civic citizens. Fellow citizens who do not aid responsible human independence are not of We the People of the United States, but may reform at any time. Family members who are not civic may be encouraged to reform by example, by exhortation, or by law-enforcement.

Our deceased ancestors are no longer active in the U.S. Preamble’s proposition for individual independence under public discipline. Deceased aliens and dissidents cannot reform and do not collaborate with living citizens.

Families with children collaborate and connect to maintain the opportunity for responsible independence to grandchildren and descendants beyond. Thus, living families are “ourselves” to the coming generations, including our posterity.

Completing the circularity of subject and object in the U.S. Preamble’s abstract proposition, the living entity We the People of the United States appreciates and works for the opportunity to assure civic integrity to the continuum of future citizens.

In civic integrity, our descendants’ opportunities for responsible human independence cannot be sacrificed for the opinions of founding fathers, framers, signers, or any of the deceased citizens, let alone aliens such as British loyalists, living or deceased.

Tom Carey

I never read this with this much concentration and now that I have it is a little strange. It was written in the style of the time, but even taking that into consideration it is still a bit odd.

Phil Beaver responds:

My first response to your question was a densely-packed 31 words. You kindly inquired about “living.” My response is a densely-packed 137 words---340% more to explain only one of the original words.

I write patiently for patient readers as well as busy readers whose curiosities might be motivated to explore the neglected civic, civil, and legal powers of the U.S. Preamble. Your reaction is not expressive: style of what time? still? odd? What do these quips mean?

Joining the entity We the People of the United States after centuries tolerating the fruitless “we, the people” is a bit strange for U.S. citizens. Ask a specific question, and I will respond again.

Law professors

https://lawliberty.org/forum/american-socialism-and-the-sovereign-self/

In deep consideration, this essay seems appropriate for un-civic Christianity enacting liberty/license to violence so as to lessen fellow-citizens’ freedom. By un-civic Christian I mean the fellow citizen who insists that other humans must worship a particular Christian God. However, every citizen has the un-consignable sovereignty to reserve enough humility for whatever-God-is. Several times, when I have thought I was in a civic conversation, the Christian fellow citizen who heard “whatever-God-is” left after saying “I will pray for you.” Human responsibility and humility is more likely through independence rather than through liberty/license.

Quoting Melonic, “If we are defining individualism as self-centeredness, then Pinkoski’s conclusion is completely logical.” If the individual intends to non-violently develop integrity rather than tolerate infidelity to the-literal-truth, self-centeredness encourages self-interest: developing integrity is in the person’s best interest. Integrity is the practice of discovering whether a personal-concern stems from actual-reality or from a mirage; if the former, learning how to benefit, sharing the ineluctable evidence with fellow citizens, and being alert for new discovery that requires change or reform.

In this human quest, physics and its progeny---mathematics, chemistry, biology, psychology, and chance (belief without evidence)---are the objects of discovery and benefit. Opinion is subjective rather than objective and must be used sparingly if at all. When an individual does not know the-literal-truth, it is in his or her self-interest to publicly admit:  I do not know.

Returning to Melonic, “. . . this new form of Marxism . . . away from the concerns of one’s fellow man leads to the denial of community [and] changes people into barely two-dimensional characters carrying socialist slogans. Essentially, they are owned by the ideology . . .” Reminds me of the Christian sects.

Melonic again: “This kind of behavior is destructive of liberty. The objective of ideologues like those Pinkoski describes is to take away freedom of others.” I think a human culture develops freedom-from oppression so that the individual may develop his or her unique, responsible human independence during complete adulthood. No individual or institution has the license/liberty to constrain fellow citizens’ encouragement to responsible human independence. Responsible independence conforms to ineluctable evidence rather than dominant opinion.

“The Bourgeois Bolsheviks . . . self-centered autonomy . . . have sacrificed their personhood for ideology. [To] be free and sovereign . . . calls for . . . responsibility, something that does indeed go beyond the notion of individualism.” The ineluctable evidence demands civic citizenship. “[S]overeignty is [both intended] and accomplished.”

In the U.S., the commitment to civic citizenship is offered in the preamble to the U.S. Constitution. Both elected and appointed officials must demonstrate that they are first members of the entity We the People of the United States. That society practices and promotes the preamble’s proposition: civic, civil, and legal integrity.

At least 2/3 of fellow citizens must be of We the People of the United States, and 2/3 of members of domestic societies and associations must also be of We the People of the United States. Civic citizens must hold elected and appointed officials accountable to the U.S. Preamble’s proposition under the-literal-truth rather than dominant or collective opinion.

The reform to civic, civil, and legal reliability under the preamble’s proposition and the-literal-truth ought to be led by fellow citizens who are hopeful believers yet reserve enough humility to appreciate and take advantage-of whatever-God-is.

Facebook

https://www.facebook.com/groups/qayyum110

I think men don't recognize that a woman represents a potential crowd of 400 human ova she typically produces during her fertile years.

The woman naturally cares about and for her ova and seeks an authentic man to care for them for life and for their children's children and beyond.

When an authentic man beholds a woman, he sees the crowd and would not do anything to threaten its future.

Unfortunately, our cultures, mostly developed on religious dogma, do not teach these actual-realities to either youth or the chronological adults. The consequence is that many adults, especially males, who do not generate ova, remain adolescent for life.

Women know these principles and share the burdens at hair salons and elsewhere.

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.

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.

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.