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 equity: For
discussion, I convert the preamble’s predicate phrases to nouns and paraphrase
it for my interpretation of its proposal as follows: “Civic Citizens of the United States
continually develop and practice 5 domestic disciplines---integrity, justice,
peace, strength, and prosperity---in order to encourage to living citizens
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
With social forums Online, freedom to publish takes on new wrinkles for perhaps unconstitutionally constraining freedom of expression.
Social-forum owners can invite people to communicate, collect their creative thoughts, then ban them from the forum, erasing the intellectual property from the expresser's immediate access. Also, they can invite questions, distribute them to readers for comment, then ban the comment, again, keeping the expressers intellectual property.
This new development reveals the power of publishers to collect thinkers' expressions but not publish them, thereby positioning the publisher to retain the intellectual property for their use.
What's wonderful about the new media is that the writer who wants to express ideas without collecting from the public has the independence to do so, notwithstanding the media owner's proprietary trickery.
This new development reveals the power of publishers to collect thinkers' expressions but not publish them, thereby positioning the publisher to retain the intellectual property for their use.
What's wonderful about the new media is that the writer who wants to express ideas without collecting from the public has the independence to do so, notwithstanding the media owner's proprietary trickery.
Columns
Freedom of expression constrained by the media-owner,
whether the expressor likes it or not (J.R. Madden) (https://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/opinion/letters/article_0bf2b510-a41f-11ea-a962-af1c8b9d6c74.html)
J.R. may not have experienced U.S. Amendment I "freedom of
the press," one of the 1789-1793 Congress’s, so far, enduring mistakes.
Freedom of the press (now media and social "science") represses
civic-citizen connections and thereby regresses encouragement to statutory
jusice.
The expressor, including the press-hired writer writes without
freedom, because the freedom of expression is reserved by the publisher. For
example, The Advocate reserves the right to caption an expressor’s letter.
What's being overlooked, so far, in the online debate, is the
opportunity for the owner of the forum to invite ideas from the public then use
proprietary-rule revisions to delete the comments.
For example, since about 2015, I amassed well over 100 essays
promoting the U.S. Preamble's proposition on the blog libertylaw. org. I
continually praised the forum for its candidacy to establish civic citizens’
practice of the U.S. Preamble and its excellence in helping me develop better
understanding of preamble-neglect if not repression. In 2020, suddenly my posts
were greeted by "YOUR COMMENT HAVE BEEN AUTOMATICALLY APPROVED AND
POSTED.”
However, my comments do not appear, and I cannot find them or
most of the old ones Online. I wrote to the owners, but they did not answer.
In 2020 I discovered two evidentiary points. First, an egregious
civic, civil, and legal problem is preservation of British-American precedent
that opposes the public disciplines and individual-citizen purpose (I perceive)
in the preamble’s abstract sentence. The citizen who does not own a personal
interpretation of the U.S. Preamble seems a subjugated renter rather than owner
of the responsible human independence the preamble offers.
Maybe the conservative law professors don’t like my discoveries
and are not prepared to address them. Regardless, I am grateful they booked
this chemical engineer as long as they did. Without the dialogue of me reading
their writers’ essays and commenting and regrettably facing occasional
ridicule, I could not have learned as fast as I may have learned. That is, I
think I learned but reserve the right to be wrong. Thank you, libertylaw
proprietors.
I experience similar problems with quora.com, which purports to
be a global opportunity to share ideas. In 2020, monitors deleted some of my
responses demanding documentation of what appeared to them ideas I had
expressed before or erroneous reference to other thinkers’ ideas. I disagree.
For example, when I write that the preamble proposes “discipline of by and for
fellow citizens” it’s a stretch to think I am plagiarizing Abraham Lincoln’s
Gettysburg Address: “government of the people, by the people, for the people,
shall not perish from the earth.” My substance is discipline not government;
citizens not the people; and the U.S. not the earth, and I assert that the U.S.
Preamble’s proposition has not been accepted and therefore cannot perish.
Perhaps the age of censorship via copyright is being challenged
by fellow-citizens-demands to consider, communicate, collaborate, and connect
without imposing individual hubris toward whatever-God-is.
I think that is the point of the U.S. Preamble’s proposition and
civic citizens of the U.S. have responsible human independence in their genes
and memes even though local, state, and national officials under Congress
strain against human justice.
It takes 3 decades to acquire the comprehension and intent to
live a complete human life. The first step in appreciating civic citizenship is
to accept that your person intends-to and will develop human integrity rather
than tolerate infidelity toward fellow-citizens.
No recognition of
civic citizens (Max Reichard) ()
The community of my primary-school-memory had a saying:
Remain silent and be thought a tyrant or express arrogant opinion and remove
all doubt.
I wish I could recall the teacher to thank for convincing me
at Staub School to read Ralph Waldo Emersion and Thomas Paine before I was
eleven years old. I could not have articulated it then, but Emerson (1838
essay) convinced me I could perfect my unique person if I acquired the
intention to both discover and practice integrity. I could not have articulated
it then, but Thomas Paine (1775 letter) taught me that enslaving human beings invited
woe to the owner.
As one consequence, the only black man on my newspaper
delivery route, on hearing that I was moving on to a more responsible, better
paying avocation (my vocation was student), said, “I hate to see that. You’ve
been the best on the block.” I could not have thought it then, but perhaps he
was praising my dedicated service. He was old enough in 1954 for direct-sales-block-stories
from living ancestors.
Earlier, on a second delivery-route I had acquired, a father
of three didn’t pay his bill. When I knocked on the door he said, “I’ll have a
job in three weeks, but in the meantime I must feed my children. Please wait 2
more weeks for payment. I must read the paper to search for that job.”
I granted his request but discussed it with my dad. Dad
said, “I’m proud of you, and don’t let it build past his promise.”
Neither Ralph Waldo Emerson nor Thomas Paine nor Dad failed
to accept their human individual power, individual energy, and individual
authority (HIPEA) to develop integrity rather than tolerate infidelity, for
example, toward fellow humans.
To effectively accept HIPEA, a person must first accept
being a human being, then accept that he or she can perfect his or her unique
path to integrity. Erroneous habits may accumulate infidelities that invite if
not beg woe.
Civic
citizens may comprehend that the U.S. Civil war seems fought by white
Christians whose personal God had a schedule to punish black people’s hereditary
sins versus white Christians whose personal God assigned blacks human
equity under statutory justice.
To
consider my warring-Christian-perception, review the declaration of secession’s
phrase “more erroneous religious belief,” the 1856 anti-abolitionist-sacking of
Lawrence, Kansas, and a general’s letter to his wife lamenting
abolitionist-evil rather than proposing to save her by selling everything and
move to a non-slave state. See online at avalon.law.yale. edu/19th_century/csa_scarsec.asp, en.wikipedia.
org/wiki/Sacking_of_Lawrence, and encyclopediavirginia.
org/Letter_from_Robert_E_Lee_to_Mary_Randolph_Custis_Lee_December_27_1856, respectively.
The Civil War seems white people’s unheralded gift to the world: To believe your personal/doctrinal God usurps
whatever-God-is invites woe. People employ “faith” to attempt to impose a
personal God on fellow citizens, too many of whom use HIPEA for integrity, even
though they do not articulate it. I question the perhaps “more erroneous
religious belief” of African-American Christianity: does it represent
responsible human independence? If so, there’s nothing to fear from
African-American Christians.
Individuals in each generation face the unfolding of
reality as discovery increases. Evidence suggests the U.S. Civil War was a
Christian travesty. The offending states had the unfavorable strength ratio
7:27. It is the clearest evidence that the U.S. First Amendment should be
reformed to address integrity rather than religion; humanity rather than race.
It’s not too late for Max Reichard to avoid absolutes such
as: all white people are guilty. He overlooks Louisiana’s preponderance of
civic citizens.
No appreciation
for civic citizens (EBRP Mayor-President Broome) (https://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/opinion/letters/article_39440428-aa5b-11ea-9021-17fe55ae3ca1.html)
It seems to me Mayor-President Broome’s letter is political
propaganda of for and by the Broome administration.
I always hope for the best and was reasonably accepting of
the performance review---might have found it difficult to vote against her
second term---until the last paragraph:
“Baton Rouge . . . will not be
intimidated by . . . overt expressions of racism. We will choose faith over
fear for it is the only path . . .” If Broome words do not express racism, I
can’t recognize the-objective-truth!
It was throw-back-Thursday: recalling Broome’s 2016 campaign
on church and dialogues for racism.
Everybody feels if not knows that whatever-God-is consigned
to the human individual responsible human independence. Unfortunately, too many
fellow citizens oppose equity under statutory justice, hoping their personal
God will protect their children and beyond. In a civic culture, most citizens
develop integrity to the-objective-truth rather than infidelity to statutory
justice. Baton Rouge citizens seem to accept and connect-for civic integrity,
conflicted as the rest of the country may be.
I’d like to focus on the civic citizens of Baton Rouge. They
were the individuals who kept outside groups from trashing our integrity after
Alton Sterling was killed. National groups converged on Baton Rouge to foment
damage and injury that is typical of such incidents, but the civic citizens
would not allow it. Mayor Kip Holden and his law-enforcement led by assigned
Chief Carl Dabadie as well as elected DA Hillar Moore created an example for
the rest of U.S. civic citizens. The world’s attention was on Baton Rouge, and
fellow citizens met the challenge.
The Advocate could have won its first Pulitzer Prize on the-objective-truth
regarding 2016s civic unrest. Why hasn’t The Advocate extolled the photo of
Philadelphian Ieshia Evans under non-violent arrest by Baton Rouge police; see https://www.huffpost.com/entry/two-years-after-going-viral-ieshia-evans-reflects-on-her-iconic-protest-photo_n_5b3bbefde4b09e4a8b28129f.
Instead, The Advocate’s hubris helped effect the misguided
termination of an 1880 Louisiana treasure:
impartial criminal trials through majority jury verdicts; in 1880, the
still-statistically-informed 9:3 verdicts. Louisiana citizens are beginning to accrue
the bills for the tyranny the Louisiana State Bar Association, The Advocate,
and the Louisiana Legislature imposed on Louisiana civic citizens. Judges and
lawyers will take the money. Ironically, the US Supreme Court codified the U.S.
Amendment XIV.1 unanimous-verdict-tyranny on a 6:3 majority vote! Nine
self-ruled justices can have majority opinion, but a French-influenced
posterity of disciplined civic citizens cannot! And the direct injustice of
re-trials of past majority verdicts falls 380% disproportionally on black
fellow citizens: nationally, 12% of the population commits 50% of violent
crimes, 90% against their faction. Shame on the U.S. for such tyranny over
civic citizens---recalling Broome’s honest, familiar sentiment, especially
black [civic] citizens. Honesty is insufficient: civic citizens require
integrity.
In my sixth decade as a Baton Rouge citizen, I
have never, to my knowledge, met an aware dissident to justice. I know
criminals and tyrants are out there and think I can tell when I see them. The
civic citizens of Baton Rouge have life-time development of justice running in
their veins, and neither faith nor fear can win their support for vigilantism
in the name of church or race.
Shame on Broome for recognizing Baton Rouge as
a target for racial fear and church faith rather than as majority civic
citizens. Baton Rouge is better and deserves better.
Quora
No.
Here are a few reasons. First, no one knows the best
education; in fact, I think, encouraging and coaching a child to accept being a
human being is a basic, ignored, education department function. Second, not
every person is convinced that education is in his or her best interest when he
or she is the education department’s object. More importantly, the educators
have no clue as to the world the student will face and therefore cannot impart
the knowledge the student needs.
On the other hand, education departments need total reform
so as to impart to the student as chronologically early as possible for each,
unique person, the trust that accepting that the human has the individual
power, the individual energy, and the individual authority (HIPEA) to develop integrity
rather than tolerate infidelity is in his or her self-interest.
The needed reform is in the education opportunities more
than in the availability.
So far, no government has met my right to
know calculus.
Mr. Lindsay, thank you for making me aware of Dandemis (4th
century BC). Alexander the Great was one of my favorite biographies from 5th
grade, when I was usually last to be chosen for sandlot sports teams.
Please find my discussion of iterative collaboration at
promotethepreamble.blogspot.com, “A civic culture,” posted 11/1/2016 and
updated. Read under the heading “Iterative collaboration . . . ”
My story: Perhaps 2
decades ago another chemical engineer, Woody Wilson, now retired, asked me what
I was doing in retirement. I replied, reading, writing, and conversing about “we,
the people.” He immediately responded with the literal correction “It’s We the
People of the United States.” Seven years ago, I started leading public-library
meetings and now appreciate opinions from over seventy people. Only this year I
discovered that the preamble’s tacit subject, by virtue of the provisional “in
order to” is Civic People of the United States, or better.
Thus, by offering to discuss a heartfelt concern and
grounded solution, then demonstrating an open mind, a fellow citizen can reach,
in this case, an interpretation the (1787) authors of the abstract U.S. Preamble
made possible.
I think the U.S. Preamble’s essence is: civic citizens
maintain 5 public disciplines “in order to” encourage responsible human
independence to living citizens. The preamble offers no standards of performance,
implying that posterity’s posterity may discover the ultimate, human statutory-justice.
It is an interpretation I would like to discuss with each my
nearest and my furthest government representatives, but I cannot open their
minds---neither to give them gold nor to save my independence.
I don’t think so but don’t know.
Perhaps the U.S. is reforming to the
September 12,1787 U.S. Preamble, signed on September 17, 1787 and ratified
without objection on December 15, 1791.
I write constantly to promote adoption of
the U.S. Preamble’s repressed proposition. For example, this morning I wrote
the paragraph below, revised.
When I write that the preamble proposes
“discipline of by and for fellow citizens” traditionalists may claim I
plagiarize Abraham Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address: “government of the people, by
the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.” My substance is
discipline not government; citizens not the people; the U.S. not the earth; and
enact not perish.
Writing this to you makes me realize I don’t
have to invite the Lincoln issue, and I now replace “of by and for” with “to,”
bringing my writing back to the U.S. Preamble. Thank you, Geritt Bernard, for
your question.
The preamble’s “liberty” reminds me of
revolutionary license to kill, as in England’s 1788 Glorious Revolution,
America’s 1774 Revolution for Independence, and France’s 1789 Bloody
Revolution. In contrast, the 12 states’ Constitutional Convention of 1787
proposed civic, civil, and legal discipline in order to encourage responsible
human independence to living citizens.
The ratification conventions in the 12
represented states led to an agreement that the first Congress would amend the
U.S. Constitution. The required 9 states ratified the 1787 Constitution under
the agreement to amend. Fortunately, the U.S. Preamble survived Congress. Only
the partially egregious Bill of Rights restored some British-American
traditions, such as unanimous jury verdicts in criminal trials, freedom of the
press, and freedom of religion. (Subjects for other essays, but I’ll highlight,
below.)
I contend that protecting religion from
civic, civil, and legal integrity is unconstitutional under the preamble’s
disciplines and purpose. Further, absolute freedom of the press, while
specified by Congress perhaps as an adolescent reaction to British dominance is
not consistent with the framers and signers of the 1787 Constitution, who
limited the powers of Congress, the President, and the courts. Statistics show
that the U.S. Supreme Court must allow 5:4 verdicts, and that fellow citizens
cannot expect impartiality without 7:5 verdicts when the panel numbers 12.
What’s happening in the U.S. as I write is
that European and other alien influences, who have no concept of America’s
unheralded dream, responsible human independence, are trying to force America
into their misery and losses under social-democracy. Unfortunately for them,
the President understands
America’s republic under the rule of law and is resolved to Make America Great Again, whatever it takes. With the excellence of the team he continually strengthens, I trust he will perceive the power of the U.S. Preamble when it’s interpreted for U.S. civic citizens influencing fellow citizens to responsible human independence rather than Lockean “the people” subjecting themselves to the Chapter XI Machiavellian church-state partnership.
America’s republic under the rule of law and is resolved to Make America Great Again, whatever it takes. With the excellence of the team he continually strengthens, I trust he will perceive the power of the U.S. Preamble when it’s interpreted for U.S. civic citizens influencing fellow citizens to responsible human independence rather than Lockean “the people” subjecting themselves to the Chapter XI Machiavellian church-state partnership.
I think most Americans have responsible
human independence running in their blood, genes, and memes. Personally
interpreting the U.S. Preamble can help them articulate and practice it.
I think civic, civil, and legal reform is
underway and the idea of revolution is an alien bemusement fortunately being
addressed by this President. Make America Great Again refers to 1787’s U.S.
Preamble.
I think the slogan threatens the individual who is
influenced by it.
Lots of thoughts, for example, reciprocity, have been
expressed to obfuscate acceptances a human being can discover and practice in
self-interest. Cultures ought to inculcate them.
The human person can help humankind develop equity under
statutory justice. Also, the human person can behave so as to neither initiate
nor tolerate harm to or from any person or association of persons. These two
principles reflect integrity to being human within humankind rather than tolerating
infidelity. Action on egocentric doctrine denies association with humankind.
Entire societies may disassociate humankind, and the individual member ought to
act with responsible human independence, perhaps by leaving the society.
The slogan “no justice no peace” offers no opportunity to
consider humankind’s view of either justice or peace. It represents human tyranny
and the perpetrator knows it, unless he or she is obsessed with his or her
personal God. In that case, there is privation of sufficient humility toward
whatever-God-is.
Either way, the perpetrator of the slogan invites of not
begs woe, not from my opinion, but from the-literal-truth, which I do not know.
I don’t think so, but don’t know.
What’s important to me is to develop integrity like I had
before I became aware that my community is confused and conflicted. Then, my
refrain was “What’s that?” which I now consider close to “I don’t know.”
Goodness! My wonderful mom and dad had different Southern
Baptist Christianities, I think, because Dad was the oldest of three children
left without wealth or income when his dad died of cancer; Dad was 12 years
old, and Mom was of a relatively prosperous-poor farm family.
Dad felt obligated to take care of his mom, and Mom resented
Grandmother Farley’s Scots-Irish ways in Mom’s kitchen and elsewhere.
If asked, who had the erroneous Christianity, I say, “I
don’t know.”
If asked, is it important to be a Christian, I say, “I don’t
know but don’t think so.”
If asked if God is white, I say, “I don’t know but prefer
red.”
If asked if Donald Trump is a bad guy, I say, “I don’t think
so but don’t know and will vote for him my third time if I can.” When it comes
to voting, I always vote my opinion, which is more important to me than
another’s opinion is important to me.
First, amend Amendment I to replace the religion clauses
with “Congress shall enact no laws that constrain the citizen’s opportunity to
develop integrity.” I think the freedom of expression clauses would need
amendment to appreciation for integrity. Rules involving “so help me God,” in
“God we trust” and so on might be changed to “whatever-God-is” so as to
establish humility to replace hubris.
Second, amend qualifications to run for office so that
anyone who has demonstrated opposition to the U.S. Preamble’s civic, civil, and
legal proposition is not likely to win office.
Third, legislate licensing to vote based on a declaration-of
trust-in and commitment-to the U.S. Preamble’s civic, civil, and legal
proposition, in addition to existing requirements.
No.
Movements took us so far from the unique, U.S. opportunity
that it is difficult to explain the achievable reform we can take at this
moment into an accelerated better-future. I’ll describe the path-to success I
perceive. It’s a commitment to several acceptances. The goal, a civic culture,
seems impossible, but the means seem easily understandable and adoptable.
Accept the opportunity to be a human and a U.S. citizen.
Accept that the U.S. Preamble’s dependent predicates have
the object “ourselves and our Posterity.” Living families are the “ourselves”
to their descendants, and therefore, civic citizens earn and pay for their
lifestyles as they develop them rather than borrow $30 trillion from the
grandchildren and beyond. With this acceptance, study the U.S. Preamble so as
to earn an independent interpretation of its abstract ideas so as to order
civic, civil, and legal living, at least so as not to abuse the family’s
grandchildren and beyond.
Accept that other citizens, few as they may be are also
considering the preamble, this country’s proposal for a civic culture, abstract
as the authors made it. By sharing your interpretation you can collaborate to
improve it for your self-interest and theirs. Whether the collaboration changes
your views or not, the discussion will help establish civic connection with a
fellow-citizen. With a super-majority of civic citizens developing their
personal interpretations, there will be developing incentives for elected and
appointed officials to join the civic citizens of the U.S.
The September 1787 Committee of Style received a lame
draft-preamble with one erroneous thought: Citizens of the 13 British-American
states (naming them) enact a constitution to govern ourselves and our posterity.
Whatever their motives, the committee wrote a proposition: we civic citizens
develop 5 public disciplines to encourage responsible human independence to
living citizens. They wrote it so abstractly as to leave it to each citizen to
interpret it so as to order their civic, civil, and legal conduct. I view this
opportunity---to develop individual happiness with civic integrity---as the
U.S. exceptionality.
Unfortunately, 1/3 of the framers disagreed. Some of them
worked after 1787 to restore British-American traditions, including the Chapter
XI Machiavellian church-state-government that was created by Magna-Carta in
1215. The clergy-lords partnership would rule instead of the king, leaving the
people as subjects. When the U.S. started operations with 11 of the 12 states
who sent delegates to the 1787 convention, Congress hired chaplains so as to
appear traditionally on par with Parliament’s constitutional “divinity.”
Congress, the other two federal branches and the press have maintained this
anti-preamble and therefore unconstitutional tyranny over the concerns of
citizens ever since. Now, I am prepared for the next acceptance.
Accept that neither a man nor a society can specify the
character and demands of whatever-God-is, and that no one should yield individual
humility in order to consign his or her human authority to a doctrinal God.
Even the papal hubris seems prudent to reserve sufficient humility toward
whatever-God-is. That whatever-God-is consigned to humankind the responsibility
to discover and enact civic integrity seems made plain to every citizen who
will accept it. The individual who declines the integrity for human justice
invites woe.
Thus, accept that the human being has the individual power,
the individual energy, and the individual authority (HIPEA) to develop either
integrity to the-objective-truth (ineluctable evidence; I don’t know when that
is so) or to tolerate infidelity.
Having explained these principles, I now share my
interpretation of the U.S. Preamble’s proposition as of today: Civic Citizens of the United States develop
and practice 5 public disciplines---integrity, justice, peace, strength, and
prosperity---in order to encourage and take-advantage-of responsible human
independence to living inhabitants.
I am anxious to learn your interpretation of the U.S.
Preamble so as to have the opportunity to improve my way of living while I can.
Accepting these principles means 1) taking action right away
and 2) sharing the message so that U.S. collaboration and connection for a
civic culture goes viral almost overnight. Keep the momentum going until
citizens hear candidates for elected office presenting their accomplishments
that advance the U.S. Preamble’s proposition to fellow inhabitants.
Note: I do not want to revise this original essay but inform
readers that recently I discovered that “liberty-to” is often taken as license-to
and is therefore not preferred word choice. I now advocate responsible human
independence.
Liberty was a principle objective in three 17th-18th century
revolutions: 1688 in England, 1744 in British-colonial America, and 1789 in
France. The 1787 U.S. Constitution specified a system with 5 disciplines of by
and for citizens in order to encourage responsible human independence to fellow
inhabitants. Phil Beaver, 6/12/2020.
First, Shara Palmes, congratulations for such a profound
statement of a common question: Yours is worded perfectly to prompt my creative
thinking, late in my eighth decade. To put it another way, no one else will
respond as I now anticipate, and http://quora.com has no
justifiable cause to intervene in communication from you to me and back.
The process illustrates the civic brilliance of the http://quora.com process,
intended or not: invite creative questions, freely share with potentially
interested readers who expect to read the consequential response, and encourage
responsible human independence. The process is at a crossroad of reform from
civil and legal censorship in the name of protecting intellectual property. In
this case, the lawyers are overlooking due process by challenging the
originality and sincerity of responses to your question without challenging the
question. In other words, the http://quora.com monitors
may take advantage of your creativity with an old topic yet prevent my response
on the mere belief that it is either insincere or un-original. In my
view, http://quora.com is
the unintended victim of its lawyers. For example, it is ludicrous to claim
that my phrase “discipline of by and for citizens” should reference Abraham
Lincoln, who was constrained by British obsession with the contradiction:
“self-governance” and “the people” versus government; and subsequent
British-American tradition. Plagiarism law-processes need to be revised so as
to require proof of plagiarism before action can be taken by the media. The
revision needs to protect your creative questioning from arbitrary intervention
in my creative response, which draws from my numerous past posts here and
elsewhere. Search on Google Chrome “Phil Beaver”+”civic people” to see what I
mean. I cannot account for my posts, which I publish expecting the reader to do
Internet research according to individual interest to discover my psychological
path as much as possible.
If there’s my opportunity to respond without arbitrary
censoring by http://quora.com,
let me begin to answer you. As I write, please keep in mind that I am not
writing about all of humankind, but about a few societies within humankind.
Also, I am not writing about a specific gender, race, religion, or other bias
excepting one: most citizens want mutual, comprehensive safety and security so
that they can develop human integrity as they perceive it, even though they may
not be able to articulate that desire. I refer to such people as “civic
citizens.”
First, today’s children face an adulthood that no living
adult can imagine. It’s obvious to the living generation that past generations
did not adequately imagine today’s chaos, but the adults in the family are too
busy trying to survive. On the other hand, the children are being reared more
or less as human beings.
The children who accept being human may discover the
individual power, the individual energy, and the individual authority (HIPEA)
to either 1) develop integrity to the-literal-truth unknown as it may be or 2)
tolerate even nourish infidelity. No culture inculcates these three acceptances
including accepting integrity, so the child’s chances to discover responsible
human independence are small.
The person who discovers and accepts these three principles
has a chance of taking charge of the transition from infant to young adult with
the comprehension and intention to live a complete human life. By “complete” I
mean with longevity according to the person’s genes and body and psychological
potential. The person who developed integrity of mind and body has lived a
complete human life. I remind you, I write my opinion, not the-objective-truth,
the humanly ineluctable evidence for approaching the-literal-truth.
To focus on your question, the coming generation studies the
past in order to benefit from the present generation yet avoid repeating their
mistakes, especially the ones that were embedded by tradition. For example, the
hubris of the British-American view of “freedom of religion” holds the U.S.
hostage from developing human integrity. Our generation, about the 12th since
1791’s Congressional ratification of the First Amendment’s tyranny over
citizens’ psychology, has the opportunity to reform so as to support the human
duty to develop integrity rather than institutional religions’ business
interests and its Chapter XI Machiavellian partnership with governments.
See Machiavelli: The Prince:
Chapter XI.
I don’t know.
I think it is a product of Alinsky-Marxist organizations
(AMO) that emerged from the 1968 pivotal events. See Alinsky answer at the very
end that he condones violence when his rights are at stake; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OsfxnaFaHWI.
Both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are students. A modern leader is OFA,
Organizing for Action; see A
Biography of Jon Carson, Executive Director of Organizing for Action.
Obama influences AMO in Europe: see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WU7Byp59Elo.
Europe is in misery and would like to share with the U.S.
However, Europeans can’t possibly understand the preamble to the U.S.
Constitution, because many Americans can’t get past “we, the people.” Yet
responsible human independence or civic discipline resides in many American
genes and memes and is resilient. I hope President Trump will turn to it in
time to reform the Anglo-American political regime that has dominated,
repressing the American political dream, since the first adolescent Congress
was seated in 1789. Congress has regressed since then.
Humans are constrained by physics and its progeny such as
chemistry, biology, and psychology. Death can come anytime with many causes.
“The right to life” is a political construct no one can deliver.
A decade or so ago, I ran across an educator who seemed to
be asserting that minority children have a right to mathematics. Such nonsense
explains why some children don’t discipline themselves to learn mathematics.
One human right that I think is justifiable and repressed is
opportunity and encouragement to develop integrity.
It’s essential. One of the triumphs of my life illustrates
the point.
As an expatriate chemical engineer I was charged with
maintaining the fidelity of our plant. The local bosses had insiders’ agreement
to lie to the local government. I argued that I could not let that happen and
that we could report our remediation projects that would bring us in to
standards. After seeing my persistence, they removed an engineer from my group
and told him to report to a superintendent. They omitted me from meetings about
the subject.
During six weeks, they persuaded the engineer that they
would report the truth. However, on the day they were to sign the papers, the
engineer read the lie restored to the report. He claimed he needed to go to the
toilet, but instead came and asked me to help him. I did, and we stopped the
lie, finished our project, and came into compliance.
For me, the best part of that story is the engineer taking
risk to avoid cooperating with a lie, I like to think, influenced by my earlier
trust in him.
I
don’t use “value” much in political context, so I referred to M-W online and
chose “a fair return or equivalent in goods, services, or money for something
exchanged.”
A
person who accepts being a human being may discover his or her individual
power, individual energy, and individual authority (HIPEA) and use it to either
develop integrity or tolerate infidelity to the-literal-truth, most of which is
unknown.
The
person who pretends to know places himself or herself in jeopardy of ever
discovering integrity much less developing it. For example the scholar who
continues to extol the 17th-18th century fixation on liberty as the license to
draw fellow-citizens’ blood, may never discover the potential integrity of
responsible human independence. The liberty-to self-govern pales before the
independence-to self-discipline.
The
U.S. held hostage to the brand of liberty that was extolled for each the 1688
English revolution, the 1774 American revolution against England, and the 1789
French revolution. The American revolution was won by the military strategy and
overwhelming presence supplied of Frenchmen in 1781.
In
1788, 9 of 12 represented states ratified the U.S. Constitution and its
preamble. The preamble proposes 5 public disciplines in order to encourage
responsible human independence to living citizens. Living citizens are
continuously “ourselves” to future citizens. Furthermore, since there are no
standards, only posterity’s posterity can move the leading edge of discovered
integrity, re-writing the ethics books. Civic citizens are independently
mutually-responsible, conform to physics and its progeny, and seek no moral
liberties.
Tradition
places no value on the integrity posterity’s posterity may approach.
I
think my above ideas are worthy of copywriters protection. If I wanted to do
more than share them, I’d have to start with how your question, Bixin Shui,
inspired creative thought.
It seems aspect means “a particular status . . . in which
something . . . may be regarded,” quoting Merriam-Webster online.
Responsibility refers to practicing human independence in
appreciating the-literal-truth.
The newborn human-being seems totally uninformed and
absolutely dependent---feral. After a year, he or she will be asking many
questions, like “What’s that?” It’s equivalent to expressing “I don’t know.”
A he or she psychologically matures, a nest of acceptances
may be taken. First, he or she may accept that 1) he or she is a human being and
2) it takes about a quarter century for the human to complete construction of
the wisdom parts of the brain. With a few more years of experiences and
observations, he or she may begin to develop integrity, provided he or she had
accepted responsibility.
Early acceptances are not likely, because no culture I know
of inculcates the self-interest of the discipline to routinely choose integrity
rather than tolerate infidelity to the-literal-truth. Civil influences
encourage adoption of human reason that is constructed to avoid admitting “I
don’t know.” Fortunate is the human who accepts the individual power, the
individual energy, and the individual authority (HIPEA) to develop integrity
rather than accept or pretend to accept infidelity to the-literal-truth.
For example, most people perceive that whatever-God-is
controls actual reality, but some have not the humility to reserve sufficient
appreciation for whatever-God-is. To the question: which doctrinal God
represents whatever-God-is? some adults cannot say “I don’t know.”
I think the above acceptance principles adequately answer
your question. Forced to reduce to one, I might choose accepting HIPEA to
develop integrity.
What do you think of my opinions?
The society of Civic People of the United States, as defined
by the preamble to the U.S. Constitution, may hold elected and appointed
officials to be of their society instead of among the dissidents. However, at
least 2/3 of fellow citizens must choose civic citizenship to make the
elections accountable.
Choosing civic citizenship vs dissidence starts with each
citizen owning his or her interpretation of the preamble. My interpretation is:
Civic People of the United States connect with five disciplines---integrity,
justice, peace, strength, and prosperity---in order to encourage responsible
human independence to living citizens. Recent discoveries for my interpretation
are in the 6/6/2020 post at promotethepreamble.blogspot.com.
Evidently, “our Posterity” implies the nation’s viable ova
are due equity and dignity. However, with 4 million births/year and $30
trillion debt, our generation, for adult satisfactions, is saddling each
newborn with an increasing $7.5 million debt.
What’s your interpretation of the U.S. Preamble’s
proposition? Yours is important to me.
No. The bloated baby sitting on a desert floor with a fly
drinking her tears has no chance, I think.
However, the human who studies Maslow’s hierarchy of needs
and takes responsibility to supply them in self-interest and civic service will
be happy, I think.
Oh, no, no, no. The horror!
You are on a path toward perfecting your person, and
integrity in each choice is essential. Integrity is not to fear and can be
exercised by relying on your human, individual power, individual energy, and
individual authority (HIPEA). Thoughts of infidelity make themselves evident
and are to be destroyed on presentation! Your commitment to integrity can be
shared with honest friends by example more than by exhortation.
In the first place, it takes a lot of work to understand and
practice integrity. It’s a practice! When a heartfelt concern arises, you do
the work to discover that it is not a mirage, filing the mirages as such. With
a valid concern, you do the work to discover the-objective-truth using the
ineluctable evidence. Then, you do the work to understand how to benefit from
the discovery. If a fellow citizen asks why you behave that way, you explain it
with attention to possible improvement they may suggest; your remain alert to
new perception that demands change.
Every mistake I ever made cost me dearly, and I am in tears
at this moment, because my person was telling my ego not to act. Some loses
were devastating, and it is no comfort that at age 77 I can still develop
integrity and do. I am happily alive with my family but I ruined my life a long
time ago and nothing can change it.
I’m working to change education systems so as to appreciate
that the present generation cannot predict the world the next generation will
face and therefore parents and other caretakers should transfer excellent basic
tools for the children to use and the knowledge that goes with it.
More importantly, the system should coach and encourage
children in key acceptances, such as: being a human being, which entails about
3 decades of study to accept the comprehension and intention to live a complete
human life; accepting humility toward both whatever-God-is and each civic
citizens’ personal God/none; accepting the human-individual power, energy, and
authority (HIPEA) to develop integrity rather than tolerate infidelity to
the-literal-truth; accepting “I don’t know” when that is so.
I think with cultures that so coach and encourage children,
more adults would possess the self-discipline to avoid infidelity. For the
foreseeable future, there should be adult education in these principles and
better.
I don’t know why, but your question sparked a creativity I
could not reach before.
First, my opinion is No: there should be no attempt at
equality, even before the law, where only equity can facilitate statutory
justice.
How do you and I define “minority.” Merriam-Webster online
has two pertinent uses: 1) “the smaller in number of two groups constituting a
whole” and 2) “a part of a population differing from others in some
characteristics and often subjected to differential treatment.”
U.S. citizens have the opportunity to consider the preamble
to the U.S. Constitution and interpret it to guide civic, civil, and legal
behavior or not. The preamble seems totalitarian in the subject: We the People
of the United States. However, the subordinate predicates add a conditionality
that each citizen may address or not. Regardless, the citizen’s behavior casts
him or her as either a Civic Citizen of the United States or a dissident,
perhaps by default. Recall that default does not exonerate the speeding driver.
Justice is possible when the civic citizen and the dissident
receive equitable service from statutory-law enforcement. Either party can be
in a numerical majority or in an ethnic majority and justice is blind to
everything but civic behavior vs. dissident behavior in the case being
adjudicated.
Is the intolerance internal or external? Either way, the
intolerant person could not care less.
In civic conversation, I try to discover the-literal-truth.
People who own the-objective-truth (tentative because invention could change
perspectives) freely discuss it.
The moment I discover that the other party is tolerating my
opinion or person, I change the subject to the weather, LSU sports, Nancy
Pelosi, Adam Schiff, or other trivial pursuits. In summary, I am intolerant of
tolerance and stonewall monologue by tolerant persons and societies.
I acquired this trust and commitment when I was an invited
participant in a “Freethinkers’” monthly meeting. I discovered that self-styled
freethinkers are the most closed-minded peoples I have met. Some are less
tolerable than a religious fundamentalist. The evening I spoke on “Faith in
[the-literal-truth]” my Louisiana-French Catholic wife and one of our
non-doctrinal-theist daughters served punch and homemade cookies. The group
insulted their religions with them in the room. Asked if she is humble, our
daughter answered, “I think I am humble,” leaving judgement beyond her.
To your question: A
tolerant society’s tolerance/intolerance is of no interest to the individual
who rejects social ego.
Human beings, while the most aware and able of known living
species, share subjugation to physics and its progeny---including mathematics,
chemistry, biology, psychology, and imagination. For example, the human who
imagines he or she is a victim of history may either forge a history of subjugation
or imagine success and make it happen.
Success is effected with a nest of acceptances: being a
human being; taking charge of some 3 decades transition from totally uninformed
infant to young adult with comprehension and intention to live a complete human
life; human individuals have the power, the energy, and the authority (HIPEA)
to develop either integrity or infidelity to justice; integrity is in the
individual’s self-interest; through self-discipline the individual can practice
responsible human independence.
In “the complete human life,” the individual matures to
physics’ constraints with no external or internal imaginary limitations. He or
she understands taxation as a personal necessity and feels no coercion or
force. He or she appreciates the work of first-responders and cooperates
without hesitation. He or she neither initiates nor tolerates harm to or from
any person or association of civic citizens. For example, I have written for 2
decades to encourage Civic Citizens of the United States to amend the First
Amendment so as to encourage civic integrity rather than civil religious
institutions.
Freedom is practicing civic justice.
Law professors
To Michael Bond (comment at lawliberty org)
I think “a posteriori knowledge” remains alive in
scholarly discussion only because it is so vague as to mean whatever the
scholar wants to claim. So vague as to encourage blatant philosophical
omissions like “There are two opposing conceptions of philosophy . . . the
autonomy of reason, the other . . . revelation . . . accepted in humility and obedience.”
What the human individual needs is integrity: The child,
adolescent and adult person can maintain the infantile, feral posture “I don’t
know,” until the-literal-truth has been discovered by comprehending ineluctable
evidence, experience, or observation. Often, the evidence is incompletely
perceived, but humankind invents new instruments that improve comprehension.
Thereby, the-literal-truth may be approached if not attained.
While the-literal-truth requires reliable instruments of
perception, it never yields to either reason or revelation (a religious
appropriation of “imagination” or worse).
Perhaps Machiavelli by “the effectual truth” claimed to
write about the-objective-truth if not the-literal-truth rather than
reason---leaving revelation as unworthy, in his opinion. If so, I agree with
him: if not, my creativity stands on its own, and I feel no reason to refer to
Machiavelli at all.
The above comments disappeared as usual from the blog, even
after:
YOUR COMMENT
HAVE BEEN AUTOMATICALLY APPROVED AND POSTED.
I wrote to the
owners, but they did not answer.
I posted at https://www.facebook.com/lawandliberty1.
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.
