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
The Advocate may publish its interpretation of the U.S.
Constitution’s preamble.
The preamble to the U.S. Constitution is an abstract
political proposal of civic, civil, and legal integrity. It has three key
features: 1) citizens consider or neglect it by individual choice; 2) it
proposes human discipline without standards; 3) religion/spirituality is
tacitly a private concern; and 4) living citizens encourage mutual responsibility
whereby posterity’s posterity may approach the-literal-truth.
I know neither the authors’ intentions in writing the
preamble in 1787, the signers’ reasons for approving it, the nine states’
representatives’ intentions in ratifying it in 1788, nor the identity politics of
the elected officials of eleven states who repressed the preamble’s proposition
in 1789.
I only know that their abstract sentence, the most powerful
political sentence ever written, invites me to own a personal interpretation,
which I consider among my most precious possessions.
I pity The Advocate for daily expressing that they have no
idea what it means to be of We the People of the United States as defined by
the preamble.
Columns
Hypocrisy (The
Advocate) (https://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/opinion/our_views/article_2b2f45c6-99e6-11ea-b482-7b3f2bee8adc.html)
I think there’s also a Matthew 7:5 beam at The Advocate.
I maintain my full subscription to The Advocate partially to
support their information law-suits. Also, I like them listing the members of
the Louisiana Supreme Court.
The Advocate falls short in their proposal for transparency:
the editors don’t sign “Our Views,” obscuring personal favor toward social
democracy to undo the representative republic.
I’m focusing on the sentence, “The Supreme Court claims it
should be allowed to make its own rules as an independent branch of
government.” The Advocate sues for information We the People of the United
States who live Louisiana need. If the Louisiana Supreme Court is not behaving
to fulfill the civic, civil, and legal proposition that is stated in the
preamble to the U.S. Constitution, reform is needed. Where?
Perhaps enforcement or amendment of the Louisiana
Constitution is needed. I doubt amendment of the U.S. Constitution is needed
for the courts and wonder what branch-independence is referenced in the above
quote: is it Louisiana?
The argument I’d like to see is that the entity We the
People of the United States as defined in the U.S. Preamble holds both state
and national constitutions accountable. Elected and appointed government
officials ought to do everything each can to evince voluntary membership in We
the People of the United States, as the individual views the U.S. Preamble’s
proposition. In other words, posterity’s posterity leads in setting the
ultimate standards.
Of particular concern is “freedom of the press,” which,
unlike branches of government seems absolute: the press can serve everything
but the entity We the People of the United States, with immunity. I think the
U.S. Constitution needs words in the First Amendment that limits the press to
responsible human independence as described in the U.S. Preamble rather than
granting press-writers immunity from responsibility. The media should be
journaling We the People of the United States’ progress toward posterity’s
ultimate integrity.
The first
Congress’s second most egregious error: freedom of the press to shirk
journalism (George Will) (https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/a-disturbing-draft-opinion-is-an-attempt-to-exclude-conservatives-from-the-legal-debate/2020/05/14/5234666a-960d-11ea-91d7-cf4423d47683_story.html)
I’m betting Will becomes a U.S. journalist, aiding members
of the civic entity We the People of the United States to connect in order to
accomplish the civic, civil, and legal disciplines and purpose Will may
comprehend as proposed in the U.S. Preamble. In my view, it's responsible human
independence.
In this proprietary column, Will does not offer phrase-explanations that might help We the People of the United States, civic citizens, make choices in individual self-interest. For example, “equality rather than liberty” may represent a dichotomy between social democracy and political license, both of which oppose representative republicanism. When the crowd takes license to harm fellow citizens for "liberty" I want responsible human independence.
Countering the left, human beings are unique and develop their persons individually and therefore ought not want equality let alone demand it. Countering the right, England maintains a constitutional church-state-partnership. The citizen who may be convinced he or she has a soul and that his or her person may enrich the soul’s eternal future may also nourish the self-interest of humility toward whatever-God-is so as to uncompromisingly appreciate fellow citizens and encourage development of written law-enforcement so as to approach statutory justice. It is never too late for a human being to comprehend, trust-in, and commit-to the U.S. Preamble’s proposition for the standards of civic, civil, and legal integrity that posterity’s posterity will discover. See https://www.history.com/news/10-things-you-may-not-know-about-the-oddest-founding-father.
Journaling/reporting We the People of the United States’ journey under U.S. Preamble’s proposition seems an essential service that can accelerate encouragement of civic integrity. Writers who do so accept the unstated limitations of the First Amendment: encouraging the eventual success of the U.S. Preamble’s We the People of the United States.
In this proprietary column, Will does not offer phrase-explanations that might help We the People of the United States, civic citizens, make choices in individual self-interest. For example, “equality rather than liberty” may represent a dichotomy between social democracy and political license, both of which oppose representative republicanism. When the crowd takes license to harm fellow citizens for "liberty" I want responsible human independence.
Countering the left, human beings are unique and develop their persons individually and therefore ought not want equality let alone demand it. Countering the right, England maintains a constitutional church-state-partnership. The citizen who may be convinced he or she has a soul and that his or her person may enrich the soul’s eternal future may also nourish the self-interest of humility toward whatever-God-is so as to uncompromisingly appreciate fellow citizens and encourage development of written law-enforcement so as to approach statutory justice. It is never too late for a human being to comprehend, trust-in, and commit-to the U.S. Preamble’s proposition for the standards of civic, civil, and legal integrity that posterity’s posterity will discover. See https://www.history.com/news/10-things-you-may-not-know-about-the-oddest-founding-father.
Journaling/reporting We the People of the United States’ journey under U.S. Preamble’s proposition seems an essential service that can accelerate encouragement of civic integrity. Writers who do so accept the unstated limitations of the First Amendment: encouraging the eventual success of the U.S. Preamble’s We the People of the United States.
The above post was accepted at the above URL.
Original, long
version:
I’m betting Will becomes a U.S. journalist, aiding members
of the civic entity, We the People of the United States, to connect in order to
accomplish the civic, civil, and legal disciplines and purpose Will
comprehends is proposed in the U.S. Preamble; in my view, responsible
human independence. See https://www.history.com/news/10-things-you-may-not-know-about-the-oddest-founding-father
Item 6.
Throughout the generations since September 17, 1787 when the
U.S. Preamble and its draft Articles, were signed by over 2/3 of the 55
delegates who represented 12 states that were formerly British-American
colonies, citizens have depended on journalists to inform civic
discovery of integrity.
Some of the 16 non-signers overlooked the 5 disciplines of
by and for citizens, and some opposed theism’s omission from the 5 disciplines
and the preamble’ purpose: in my view, individual human happiness with civic
integrity. Consequently, unfortunately, ratifying the 1787 Constitution
entailed the quid pro quo that amendment to a British-like bill of rights would
be accomplished by the First Congress, 1789-1793. James Madison relied on the
1720-1723 pseudonym Cato papers, written by two Englishmen, to draft what
became the First Amendment; see https://www.history.com/topics/united-states-constitution/freedom-of-the-press.
Unfortunately, no one thought to authorize journalists rather than the press
and limit journalism mimicking limitations on governments: local, state, and
national branches: legislation (bicameral), administration, and judiciary.
Thus, the U.S. Constitution, finalized on December 15, 1791, with the
unfortunate political impact of Congress, features the lamentable “freedom of
the press” rather than perhaps constitutionally limited authorization of
journalism.
With journalism to aid development of individual discipline
of by and for inhabitants so as to encourage responsible human independence to
accepting, living citizens, Will might be promoting these acceptances or better
to each citizen:
I accept that am a human being; it takes at least 3 decades
for an infant to transition to accept young adult with the comprehension and
intention to conduct a complete human life. While a person may acquire concern
for a spiritual entity or soul and develop comforting theory of personal responsibility,
accepting self-interest includes sufficient humility toward whatever-God-is. A
civic citizen neither initiates nor tolerates harm to or from fellow citizens
and their responsible societies, and accepts commitment and trust to develop
human equity under statutory justice. Civic citizens actively encourage, by
example, exhortation, and written law-enforcement, dissidents such as
criminals, tyrants, and intentional dependents to reform to civic
citizenship---responsible human independence or civic integrity.
In this proprietary column, Will does not offer phrase-explanations
that might help We the People of the United States, civic citizens, make
choices in individual self-interest.
For example, “equality rather than liberty” may represent a
dichotomy between social democracy and political license, both of which oppose
representative republicanism. Countering the left, human beings are unique and
develop their persons individually and therefore ought not want equality let
alone demand it. Countering the right, England maintains a constitutional
church-state-partnership. The citizen who may be convinced he or she has a soul
and that his or her person may enrich the soul’s eternal future may also
nourish the self-interest of humility toward whatever-God-is so as to
uncompromisingly appreciate fellow citizens and encourage development of written
law-enforcement and approach statutory justice, a worthy human goal.
It is never too late for a human being to comprehend,
trust-in, and commit-to the U.S. Preamble’s proposition for the standards of
civic, civil, and legal integrity that posterity’s posterity will discover.
Journaling We the People of the United States’ journey under U.S. Preamble’s
proposition seems a treasured service that can accelerate the process. Writers
who do so accept the unstated limitations of the First Amendment: encouraging
the eventual success of the U.S. Preamble’s We the People of the United States.
Quora
I couldn’t articulate it then, but as an infant I could say
with integrity “I don’t know.” Now, I am focused on integrity and discernment
when I don’t know.
As I began to learn, my responses expanded to awareness of
facts, actual-reality, and opinion. No one coached or encouraged me to retain
integrity by saying “I don’t know” when that was the-literal-truth. When I read
Ralph Waldo Emerson’s “Self Reliance” (1841) was insufficient to terminate the
Southern-Baptist indoctrination I acquired from my parents and community. When
I fell in love with a particular Louisiana-French-Catholic woman, my wife of
over 50 years, I soon observed that her serene confidence was hers more her
community’s.
Through her and self-reliance, I have discovered a nest of
acceptances that for me define human responsibility.
First, I am a human being and will continue to develop
integrity until my mind, body, and person stop functioning. Integrity is doing
the work to discover that a heartfelt concern is not a mirage, how to take
advantage of the discovery, behaving in self-interest, sharing with fellow
citizens the basis for my behavior in order to collaborate on opportunity to
improve, and remaining open-minded toward new discovery that demands reform.
Second, it takes about 3 decades for a human infant to
transition to a young adult with comprehension and intention to live a complete
human life. Even though no culture encourages and coaches its youth to develop
integrity, each human has the individual power, the individual energy, and the individual
authority (HIPEA) to develop avoidance and rejection of infidelity. Humankind
needs to develop these principles, and it will not do so until a super-majority
of individuals accept HIPEA for developing integrity rather than tolerating
infidelity.
Third, it seems self-evident that humans may develop equity
under statutory justice. The recent focus on “equality” obfuscates the reality
that each human being is unique: the unique cannot accept equality. Justice
requires objective equity rather than subjective fairness.
Fourth, the preamble to the U.S. Constitution or better
political statement is repressed by political regimes and only responsible
citizens can accept the achievable better future its proposition offers. Each
citizen is either responsible for his or her interpretation of the preamble or
for the dependence he or she suffers. I think the preamble proposes 5 public
disciplines to encourage responsible human independence.
I feel most responsible for accepting that I am a human
being and continuously developing my person in integrity.
I hope your perception is erroneous. The world exists and
humankind’s task is to discover the-literal-truth and how to take advantage of
it. It’s an ongoing process, and our generation is alert to its opportunities.
For example, people had to discover that they could not fly
like a bird in order to contemplate aerodynamics enough to invent propellers, fuselage,
and wings to empower flight. Now, jet propulsion is empowering space travel.
The coming generation may colonize a planet. Understanding physics and its
progeny excepting psychology seems exponentially increasing.
Heretofore, humans have not contemplated psychological power
enough to overcome the mistakes of the past. The current chaos is drawing
attention to actual-reality not too different from the losses associated with
flying like a bird. I think we are at an abyss and achievable better future
will accelerate.
I base my claim on the civic, civil, and legal power of the
preamble to the U.S. Constitution, which heretofore has been repressed by the
political regimes it spawned. The preamble is neutral to religion, gender, and
race. It also offers no standards by which to judge the public disciplines and
purpose it offers. Each citizen has the opportunity to consider the preamble
and interpret it to order his or her civic, civil, and legal life, even while privately
pursuing any heartfelt hopes for his or her mysterious soul.
My interpretation for my way of living is: We the People of the United States practice 5
public disciplines---integrity, justice, peace, strength, and prosperity---in
order to encourage responsible human independence to living citizens now and in
the future. I share it to gain fellow citizens’ encouragement to improve my way
of living without questioning the mystery of soul.
It seems to me the preamble’s proposition offers mutual,
comprehensive safety and security as well as the opportunity for individual
happiness rather than submission to the unhappiness someone else specified.
Civic integrity, or responsible human independence, seems so attractive, I
think its development will accelerate in the near future.
This is a spontaneous response to Daryn Brown’s stimulating question.
I used words and phrases from my past individual development. Anyone who questions
my sincerity is invited to explore my phrases using online search. For example,
the search "Phil Beaver"+"civic people"+"civic
integrity" on Google Chrome just now yields an entire first page of URLs
to my work from various online sites.
Have the humility to do the work to comprehend what you want
to say, confirm its reliability, don’t judge the other party, and avoid the
hubris of showing how much you learned to arrive at a concise statement the
other party can efficiently consider for collaboration with you.
From the moment I started courting the woman who became my
wife of over 50 years, there never was a moment when I was near failing my
developing vow to myself to care for her. I was too awed by her serene
confidence, I think grounded in her Louisiana-French Catholic rearing but
overarched by her unique responsible human independence. I look back on my
attitude as heterophobia over the awesome responsibility in loving her.
Through her, I developed the confidence to discover myself, an
ongoing work as I approach transition into my ninth decade (early eighties).
Early on, I was so suspicious of my manhood that I used
tricks to prevent relationships that could lead to intimacy. I knew that
foreign-intimacy would terminate my self-confidence with my wonderful wife. I consider
this self-doubt a flaw stemming from religious indoctrination. Fidelity is a
personal commitment that cannot be consigned to theism or other human
constructs.
I realized other wives had husbands who understood male vows,
and therefore was able to serve on civic boards with women who were confident
in my fidelity to my wife. After a quarter-century of marriage, I had confidence
in female friendships in which both parties naturally never entered
conversation that could lead to attachment, bonding, and intimacy.
I tell this story not as a witness to my manhood but as a
statement that my wife’s serene confidence was so impactful there is no way I
could have failed it. That is not to say we did not have rocky experiences. She
is, after all, an attractive woman after over 50 years of marriage and rearing
3 children, one deceased approaching his 20th year.
Almost everyone I meet makes me feel most fellow citizens
want mutual, comprehensive safety and security so that they can pursue
individual happiness rather than the happiness/unhappiness someone would impose
on them. They seem aware that happiness comes with individual responsibility. I
want to encourage that attitude. I seek a society that would encourage the
practice and aid participation by at least 2/3 of inhabitants.
I think a proposed, repressed society offers individual
happiness with civic integrity. It is the society of We the People of the
United States as proposed in the preamble to the U.S. Constitution. The
preamble is an abstract sentence:
We the
People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish
Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common
defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty
to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the
United States of America.
Each citizen’s self-interest is
served if he or she owns a personal interpretation of this abstract proposition.
Most citizens associate the
preamble with the events of 1774, the divided-American movement for
independence from Great Britain; divided in that many Americans were loyal to
England. Few citizens comprehend that the preamble is itself the U.S. reform
from colonial-British-American tradition to “Liberty” to the people. Under
political influence and propaganda, most citizens ignore the preamble’s
dissolution/termination of the free and independent states’ confederation after
1784’s ratification of the Treaty of Paris. The 1787 U.S. Constitution offers a
Union of states held accountable by the civic, civil, and legal citizens, a
society that is defined in the preamble.
Note first that the preamble’s
subject establishes a legal system for the subordinate object: the
entity/society “We the People of the United States” [acts to secure] “to
ourselves and our Posterity.” Thus, the living civic society acts for all the
people now and in future generations with gratitude for past generations’
integrity to the proposition.
The 1787 Constitution features
the phrase “We the People” only once. It uses “people” 2 times, “persons” 16, “person”
6, “officers” 8, “officer” 4 and “office” 34, compared to the amended
Constitution with “people” 8 times, “persons” 15, “person” 34, “officers” 11, “officer”
6 and “office” 40. These word counts imply that “we the people” take civic,
civil, and legal action for the people, the officers, and the offices. Citizens
who do not take interest in statutory justice effectively submit to those who
do.
In my interpretation, the
preamble proposes 5 public disciplines---integrity, justice, peace, strength,
and prosperity---in order to encourage responsible human independence. The
preamble’s authors don’t answer for my interpretation, but their abstract
proposition invites me to own it and work to improve it. Owning my interpretation
is essential to my opportunity to aid responsible human independence for descendants
of We the People of the United States.
My interpretation of the
preamble’s proposition orders my civic life, and empowers me to claim that I am
of the society We the People of the United States. I think it offers the world
an achievable better future.
I encourage fellow citizens to
own their interpretations and think each who do will consider it one of their
prized possessions.
The
article “the” is exclusive. Religion should be excluded from civil
consideration.
The
First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects religion, a mystery, rather
than integrity, a human self-interest, both individually and collectively.
It
is alright for an individual to develop heartfelt concerns, for example, about
his or her mysterious soul, and do the work to resolve them. But it is not
alright for government to encourage living without sufficient humility toward
whatever-God-is. Demand that fellow citizens civilly worship a personal God is
unjust and ultimately a human failure.
I
think privatization of religion is the reason the preamble to the U.S.
Constitution specifies only 5 public disciplines---Unity, Justice, Tranquility,
defense, and Welfare---in order to secure Liberty to the continuum of living
citizens. Neither the disciplines nor the purpose specifies either religion or
theism.
On
that evidence, I assert that Congress’s religion clauses in the First Amendment
are unconstitutional and ought to be replaced as a first step in Congress’s
reform toward integrity.
I think so, provided there is at least this fidelity to
the-literal-truth: the authentic woman cares for her ova---potential, unique,
human lives---and the authentic man attends to them for life.
She has both aptitude for caring and vulnerability,
especially during her youth. Further, during her fertile years, she will
produce perhaps 400 viable ova, so her caring aptitude can be shared among many
humans. The authentic man views a woman as a potential crowd of human beings
and therefore someone who needs his protection no matter what. Part of the
woman’s attention is to allow intimacy only with a man who will reliably care
for her and their progeny for life. Their children’s children will have
supportive grandparents, at least on their spousal side.
The authentic man is aware of monogamy for life and develops
the serene confidence that is necessary to woo the woman he is willing to
attend for life. He can develop friendships with many women, but does not
pursue commitment unless he trusts the woman and her attention to her ova. Only
then does he attempt to bond with the woman. He does not pursue intimacy
without well-articulated, mutual trust and commitment.
The awesome responsibility of falling in love with a woman,
a mutual action, entails monogamy for life. The responsibility can induce a
fear I refer to as heterophobia. Heterophobia can be useful. When a man has a
friendship that encourages mutual, serene confidence more than heterophobia, he
has probably met the woman for him and ought to bond with her.
All these opinions I deemed necessary to come to the
conclusion. Part of the woman’s vulnerability is that the moment she perceives
she has bonded to her man, she wants to give herself to him completely. When
that happens, the authentic male will not jeopardize the woman and her viable
ova.
If my theories represent the-literal-truth, we could interpret
the conclusion to be that the authentic male protects the authentic woman in
all actions, and therefore, the civic society is a patriarchy. However, it does
not follow that every patriarchy is a civic society.
This is a spontaneous response to Gerrit Bernard’s stimulating question. I have used phrases from past
work, which readers can discover with creative online search. For example, the
search "Phil Beaver"+"civic
people"+"heterophobia" on Google Chrome, yields one result,
which is my post on my blog.
I write to learn and would appreciate comments.
Answer: I think so, and the positive view comes from
examining the individually chosen self-interest. If and when the person
perceives integrity in his or her best interest, he or she develops it
personally rather than tolerates infidelity to the-literal-truth.
Merriam-Webster online, on “individualism” informs us “a
doctrine that the interests of the individual are or ought to be
ethically paramount [and] the conception that all values, rights, and duties
originate in individuals.” I question “doctrine” over “principle” or other
softer synonym. Other absolutes seem arbitrary and unnecessary, such as
“ethically paramount” and “all values . . . “ Ethics is grounded in discovery
of the-literal-truth. When the individual practices integrity, he or she is
essential to humankind’s collective discovery of the-literal-truth.
In my opinion, comprehension of individualism as
self-interest is possible with some uncommon thoughts about a nest of
acceptances. First, a person accepts personal existence as a human being;
humans are so psychologically powerful that it takes about 3 decades for an
infant to transition into a young adult
with comprehension and intent to live a complete human life. Second, civic
citizens privately attend to any soul-concerns they may have yet maintain public disciplines that
encourage statutory justice among fellow humans. For example, civic citizens
retain enough humility toward whatever-God-is to neither evaluate
other citizens’ Gods nor offer their own God for comparison. Third, dissidents
to human justice remain open to experiences and observations that encourage them to reform; many
observations come from the confused and conflicted world and alert the
individual to inviting woe. Fourth, the human individual accepts the personal
power, energy, and authority (HIPEA) to develop integrity rather than to
tolerate infidelity to the-literal-truth. Fifth, regarding needed goods and
services, the civic citizen acts in self-interest for developing integrity,
whether their anecdotal function is buyer, seller, or one of the many risk-takers.
Perhaps the highest risk-taker is the entrepreneur, who perceives a needed good
or service and puts together the technology, property, labor, financing,
marketing, and profit to effect the public contribution.
The entrepreneur’s motive is profit, and he or she takes
self-interest in recognizing that infidelity leads to ruin. The civic citizen
appreciates capitalism and participates through public-stock and bond
ownership, and converts his or her labor into capital by accumulating wealth.
Civic citizens hold government officials accountable for financial systems that
prevent responsible individuals from participating in capitalism.
In a civic culture, such as the 1787 U.S. proposition that
is expressed in the U.S. Preamble, decisions follow the above principles or
better. So far, the USA has not developed its potential for responsible human
independence, because the First Congress, 1789-1793 intervened in
development of the U.S. proposition by re-establishing colonial
British-American traditions.
The most egregious tradition is the church-and-state
partnership that is constitutional in England, with specified seats for Church
of England officers in Parliament. The U.S. establishment of theism is codified
by Congress hiring chaplains to represent U.S. “divinity” in competition with
Parliament and the First Amendment’s unconstitutional protection of religion
rather than integrity. The Supreme Court justifies this tyranny with various
terms like “precedent”, stare decisis, originalism (covertly to English common
law) and tradition. In Greece v Galloway, the tyrant in my opinion, Justice
Anthony Kennedy refers to my objections as “niggling.” I doubt Kennedy owns a
personal interpretation of the U.S. Preamble.
Answer: I write daily to encourage education of children and
adults to individually accept being human. A nest of acceptances follow.
Each human has the individual power, the individual energy,
and the individual authority (HIPEA) to develop either integrity to
the-literal-truth or tolerate infidelity; self-interest is served by integrity.
Taking advantage of this principle is unlikely, because most extant cultures
neither encourage nor coach each youth to discover their unique capacity for
integrity.
With current education systems intending to “train the
workers we need” it takes about 3 decades for an infant to transition from
un-informed to young adult with comprehension and intention to live a complete
human life. Again, the individual choice to develop integrity is un-likely, as
it is neither encouraged nor coached by most civilizations.
These ideas cannot be called new and are at best new
expressions. I think they were developed in the past by Greeks like Agathon and
Pericles, American inhabitants/citizens like George Washington, Gouverneur
Morris, Thomas Paine, Ralph Waldo Emerson, Kahlil Gibran, and Albert Einstein,
to name a few.
Most of all, the preamble to the U.S. Constitution offers a
proposition for civic citizens, called “We the People of the United States.” The
proposal is, in my view, to establish and maintain 5 public disciplines in
order to encourage responsible human independence. Perhaps under current
education systems 1/3 of fellow citizens join We the People of the United
States during adulthood. With an education system that intends to foster
integrity, the participation could be accelerated to 2/3 in a couple years and
gradually increased into the 90s within a decade.
Living without civic, civil, and legal contribution to
statutory justice is chaos.
Being human, I un-consignably have the individual power, the
individual energy, and the individual authority (HIPEA) to develop integrity
rather than tolerate infidelity.
I think humans collaborate because the human species is the
most cognitively powerful species and develop grammar by which individuals can take
advantage of the ineluctable evidence for actual-reality. While citizens inhabit
particular locations, not all citizens accept let alone appreciate each other.
The motivation to connect with others may come with a nest
of acceptances. Human individuals may accept being human. It takes at least 3
decades for an infant to acquire the comprehension and intention to live a
complete human life. While the person may commitment to a soul’s welfare, he or
she may retain sufficient humility toward whatever controls actual-reality; as
theism, reserve enough humility toward whatever-God-is even while pursing hope
through a personal God. The human has the individual power, the individual
energy, and the individual authority (HIPEA) to develop integrity rather than
tolerate infidelity.
I perceive we are developing an achievable better future. Many
believers seem to be practicing both 1) nourishing a soul for the inevitable time
when body, mind, and person stop functioning, as well as 2) joining
non-believers to develop civic, civil, and legal integrity (responsible human
independence) for living.
Tolerance is an unfortunate practice that effects
stonewalling the self. The tolerated party resents the egocentricity and may
feel sorry for the perpetrator’s inability to communicate.
Consider my view of Agathon’s speech in Plato’s “Symposium.”
I think Agathon’s chief message is: civic citizens neither initiate nor
tolerate harm to or from any person or responsible human society. Intolerance
is expressed verbally, directly to the offender, but may be reported to first
responders. In self-defense, intolerance may be expressed by strength.
I think each human being has the individual power, the
individual energy, and the individual authority (HIPEA) with which to develop
integrity rather than tolerate infidelity. These characteristics of the human
potential work together, and one weakness can lessen the individual’s chances
to develop integrity.
His or her natural abilities, encouragement and coaching,
intentions, initiative, and choices determine whether or not he or she pursues
integrity or drifts into infidelity.
The self-interest in developing integrity at any moment in a
person’s development can explode into application of experiences and
observations that accumulated with the consequence that astonishing performance
begins and accelerates, no matter what chronological decade the person is in.
I think power, energy, and authority are equitably
necessary.
https://www.quora.com/In-50-words-or-less-what-should-the-government-perform-or-do-for-a-country?
From last week.
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 responded:
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.
Mr. Hardy, I received, by email, the question, “Can
Machiavellianism by a good thing? If so, in what capacity?” When I clicked
“answer” it brought me to this question, which I could not possibly answer.
I will answer, as best I can, your first question, according
to my opinion. I am aware of a huge body of scholarly study of Machiavelli and
doubt anyone knows his opinions, let alone facts about his philosophies.
I think Machiavelli thought through various tyrannies he
observed and wrote about them in irony so as to save his access to
readers and also save his life. The reader who considers Machiavelli-sarcasm
can contemplate what citizens should avoid so as not to choose a government run
by tyrants. You might say that is my most interesting opinion about
Machiavelli: He intended us to notice and
rely on his sarcasm.
I read “The Prince” in the mid-1990s, as a member of the
Great Books Reading and Discussion program. I do not recall reading and
discussing Chapter XI. I started studying Chapter XI as part of my quest to
understand what it means to be a U.S. citizen. I think the online text has an
interesting provider: https://www.constitution.org/mac/prince11.htm
but do not know why it’s there.
After a few years, I began to perceive that the Chapter XI
message is this, as viewed from the U.S. presidency: A U.S. president is among
the luckiest of politicians, because he lives among citizens most of whom
believe in their personal God and that their Gods will relieve their
descendants from the misery and abuse living citizens suffer from both the
church and the state. Also, the believers never consider whether or not
whatever-God-is conforms to their personal Gods. Thus, as long as the president
maintains a good relationship with the churches, the believers will trust in
their personal Gods and neither rebel nor emigrate. The clergy and politicians
can pick the people’s pockets with immunity.
I think James Madison and other framers had read “The
Prince,” 1513, but did not imagine in 1788 the harm their contentions Gods---Trinities,
Unities, Almighties, Judges of the World, Nature’s God, and so on--- promised.
In 1789, with a preamble with no standards let alone religion, Congress
restored English-American theism, repressing the U.S. Preamble’s proposition:
responsible human independence.
Now, in 2020, it seems self-evident that whatever-God-is
holds individual inhabitants responsible for integrity, justice, peace,
strength, and prosperity in order to encourage responsible human independence
to living citizens.
Some liberal scholars developed the notion that “science” is
an object rather than a process and that by using a process tool, statistics,
they could manipulate public opinion, to which public policy sometimes respond
and thereby the scholars could gain power over the people.
In reality, science is a process for studying actual-reality
by discovering ineluctable evidence for the-objective-truth. To my
understanding, the scope of research begins with physics, the object, and all
of its progeny, including mathematics, chemistry, biology, psychology, and
speculation. Some people practice speculation when the available evidence has
been researched and there is no explanation for a perceived concern or
observation.
Some people doubt scientific research because researchers
rarely conclude that the-objective-truth they discovered is the-literal-truth.
Researchers always reserve appreciation for new discovery that may change
the-objective-truth yet enhance the approach to the-literal-truth.
Speculation is the branch of physics (or better expression for
the source of everything than “physics”) that springs from what is unknown. For
example, no one has the knowledge by which to discount whatever-God-is. In
other words, it’s doubtful that whatever-God-is conforms to anyone’s personal
God. Yet, because whatever-God-is has no ineluctable evidence, people claim to
represent the origin of everything and call their theoretical power “God,” with
no humility at all. Acting on speculation often invites woe.
Back to sociology, self-styled social scientist speculate
that because they label their work “science” they’ll be able to influence
people as they like. The method is to consider the desired influence, design a
statistical study so as to favor the influence, select objects of a
questionnaire, conduct the survey eliminating opinions that could lead outside
the selected alternatives, analyze the statistics so as to favor the influence,
and finally, rely on a cooperative media to help influence the public. In other
words, the media report the study results as they are told to.
The entire effort is pseudo-science promoted on the
assumption that public poles determine public opinion and public opinion
controls public policy, so the partnership of social science and complicit
media can control the people. Unfortunately for political science, the U.S. is
a republic under the rule of law, not a democracy. Therefore, social democracy
is a failure.
I am expressing only my opinion. However, there seems
evidence of my theory in the recent impeachment of President Donald Trump. The
Democrat-controlled House of Representatives conducted an unconstitutional
hearing that skillfully used deep-state witnesses to represent the higher
opinion in the debate with the Trump administration’s conduct. The media
expressed dismay that the president would not yield to deep state diplomats and
career officials. The Democrats were fooled by social scientists and their
media partners to believe that false claims could sway the public and dictate
conviction in the Senate. They continue to press this woeful assumption.
The administration’s lawyers made a compelling case that the
impeachment and its perpetrators were false. Democrats in the Senate swore to
uphold the U.S. Constitution and tailed off their oath with “so help me God.”
Only Mitch Romney claimed his religion (the Mormon God) alienated him from the
U.S. Constitution. I hope Romney forever damned Mormon saints from elected
office. However, almost all the Democrats voted neither their personal Gods nor
the U.S. Constitution: they voted Democrat.
Now, Mr. Yasmin, you may be wondering how my tale relates to
the rise of sociology. I speculate social science a religious movement that its
founding scholars believed could defeat theism, in particular Christianity, as
the basis for civic integrity. However, it is a lost cause, because integrity
does not conform to opinion.
I think humankind knows more about civic integrity than ever
and U.S. failures are emerging into public awareness.
The U.S. Preamble is a proposition for 5 disciplines of by
and for fellow citizens in order to encourage responsible human independence.
Civic citizens voluntarily observe and maintain their interpretations of the
proposition. Other citizens are dissidents (whether passive or active), or
aliens, or traitors. Many fellow citizens have no civic integrity.
The possibility for me to hold these opinions was created by
the First Congress and has been maintained by Congress, the Supreme Court, and
the administrations ever since. Whereas the U.S. Preamble proposed
psychological independence from Great Britain’s common law, the First Congress
did all it could to re-establish Chapter XI Machiavellianism:
church-state-partnership with immunity to pick the people’s pocket because the
people believe that whatever-God-is will relieve them of the losses and misery.
The U.S. failure to practically separate state from church
has resulted in the chaos the entity/society We the People of the United States
suffers. Close examination of the U.S. Preamble suggests that only We the
People of the United States can establish and practice its proposition, and
thereby hold fellow citizens who accept elected or appointed office to conform
to the U.S. Preamble in their execution of the offices.
As always, I write opinion so as to learn from fellow
citizens or others who will comment.
Globally, I don’t think so. Locally it probably is a
constructed, social norm.
Property may be any product of human labor. For example,
this response to your question is my private property and remains so when I
post it. In just human relations, products of labor are owned by the worker,
unless he or she negotiates remuneration for time and talents in exchange for
ownership. The entity that takes property without negotiation is a tyrant if
not criminal.
The negotiation is a social relationship to determine the
value of the labor and talents in creating the product/service. A doctor’s
talents are high in medical care and low in the practice of law. A judge’s
talents in the law may be high with civic citizenship low. For example, a judge
who would terminate a fellow citizen’s life over a misdemeanor ought to be
fired.
Humankind strives for a market wherein every wanted service
and product is paid for sufficiently to sustain the worker’s human lifestyle.
The worker who can only supply minimal labor must save and invest to build
wealth for family events and for personal retirement, and therefore must live a
reserved lifestyle. The doctor, whose talents warrant higher pay may enjoy a
more liberal lifestyle, which he or she earned by acquiring the talents and
skills. Unfortunately, many judges and lawyers especially view themselves as
above the entity We the People of the United States, and therefore do not
accept the disciplines and purpose proposed in the U.S. Preamble. Many fellow
citizens are aliens to the U.S. Preamble’s proposition.
I think private property is an element of human justice that
humankind develops only in writing. The approachable goal is perfect law
enforcement: statutory justice. Perfect justice comes from comprehending and
practicing the-literal-truth. Humankind approaches the-literal-truth by
discovering and taking advantage-of the-objective-truth using ineluctable
evidence rather than adopting opinion and continually improving the instruments
of perception.
How a particular culture/civilization develops statutory
justice (including property ownership) seems a social construct. Some cultures
bemuse themselves with concepts like fairness to compete with justice.
However, the-literal-truth involves neither emotions nor passion---only
actual-reality, as observed with the ineluctable evidence.
This is an original response to Martin Palastrov’s creative
question that he directed to me. I express opinions, and anyone who regards
them as truths does so on their own; I write to learn positive or negative
criticism. I used words and phrases I often use. For example, just now I used
the Google Chrome search: "Phil Beaver"+"civic
people"+"the-literal-truth". The results numbered 6, one of
which has 13 results, or 18 total.
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.
