Wednesday, May 15, 2019

Announcing Responsible Liberty Day (in the USA)


  

Our sixth annual celebration of June 21, 1788 is scheduled for June 20, 2019 at 7:30 PM at EBRP Main Library, Conference Room A. The public is invited. Seating is limited, so please inform us of your plan to attend.



Each year, we commemorate and celebrate the day the people of nine states ratified the U.S. preamble and the articles that accompanied it, establishing the 1787 U.S. Constitution. Ratification left four eastern-seaboard states globally free and independent. Two states joined the USA before operations began under the people of eleven states on March 4, 1789. The USA is uniquely predicated on the self-discipline of the individual citizen. We work to establish the U.S. preamble’s proposition: mutual, comprehensive safety and security for fellow citizens.



In keeping with the leading edge of our work, we are introducing perhaps the world’s first Responsible Liberty Day. It is appropriate for this commemoration and celebration to originate in Baton Rouge for many reasons, not the least of which is the fact that observations and articulations were developed in the public meetings at EBRP libraries conducted by A Civic People of the United States, a Louisiana civic-education corporation.



We observed the U.S. preamble’s proposition to individual citizens is to collaborate for five public provisions for freedom-from oppression so as to accept and encourage responsible human liberty. Union, Justice, Tranquility, defense and Welfare would secure responsible individual liberty to living generations. Of known species, only humans have the awareness and grammar to develop, accept, and encourage responsible liberty. The U.S. preamble is silent on the motivations many people perceive or construct to oppose the U.S. preamble’s proposition.



It is also silent on the standards by which We the People of the United States discover statutory justice, a worthy goal. In our theory of a civic culture, the-objective-truth provides the standards for justice. The-objective-truth is the ineluctable evidence by which truth is judged.



We think these articulations are only the beginning of U.S. reform from competition for dominant opinion to collaboration for individual happiness with civic integrity. We hope you will be excited and want to join in the work by attending this informative meeting.



We discuss 1) what A Civic People of the United States does to develop a civic culture and 2) explain our observations about the U.S. preamble’s proposition. The public is invited to join these and future discussions about 1) how the U.S. preamble became ineffective, 2) what can be done for an achievable better future, and 3) what it takes for an individual to accept responsible human liberty.



Copyright©2019 by Phillip R. Beaver. All rights reserved. Permission is hereby granted for the publication of all or portions of this paper as long as this complete copyright notice is included.

Wednesday, May 8, 2019

Toward no U.S. commoners


It is not surprising that Michael Zuckert’s view* of President Donald Trump is populist. I understand "populist" to mean a politician who claims to represent “common man.” In 1776, Thomas Paine wrote, “I do not choose to be a common man.” I think the U.S. purpose is responsible human liberty. Among the We the People of the United States under the U.S. preamble---that is, psychologically free of English influence---there are no intended commoners.


Zuckert is a leading scholar on Englishman John Locke’s opinions. Locke-opinion may not be capable of imagining an American. In other words, many English traditions oppose the American intentions. American intentions are yet to be developed by an adult majority in an American generation. That is, no past U.S. generation has reformed from some colonial-English traditions. I doubt Trump has such reform in mind yet hope he will think of it during his presidency.


Zuckert makes a good point: vigilantism leads to lawlessness that can infect civic citizens---those who otherwise collaborate for equity under the U.S. preamble. I thought of the Democratic Party’s mob attack on now Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh. I also recalled James Comey’s unbelievable conduct in the investigation of Secretary Hillary Clinton; plus the subsequent evidence that Comey has yet to understand the meaning of integrity as a practice: doing the work to admit to self you do not know facts you do not know. The President-Trump surprise in this article makes me wonder about Zuckert’s psychological maturity.


It’s no surprise that a political scientist would admire “the founders.” It’s a way to impose personal opinion. To the writer “the founders” is not unlike “God.” To the reader, the writer’s God is whatever-God-is. In other words, the reader does not impose his or her God on the writer, but the writer keeps imposing his or her God. (Neither party appreciates whatever-God-is.) Nobody can agreeably name the founding fathers. Political science flourishes on opinion rather than ineluctable evidence.


Past and present English thought matters not to U.S. fellow citizens. What matters in the U.S. is the power of what the 55 framers constructed and the 39 signers approved on September 17, 1787 in Philadelphia. Reference to “the framers” probably indicates a viewpoint of one or more of the 15 dissidents from the 12 attending states’ delegates. With perhaps 4 representative dissidents from the rebel state, there might have been 19 total dissidents, such that the signers were 66% of U.S. representation. Representatives who were nevertheless champions of colonial-English oppression were among the 34% dissidents, and some of the signers probably held similar views but signed anyway. The USA was established on June 21, 1788, with at least 34% dissention among free citizens.


Back to Zuckert’s point, there are in this country fellow citizens who are dissenters, including groups who support vigilantism, zealots for social democracy, and skeptics with the intent to disguise actual reality with obscure arguments. Saul Alinsky thought violence was justified when his rights were at stake. And he was in charge of determining Alinsky’s rights. His vigilantism for the poor became mob disruption of civic, civil, and legal daily conduct. In general, the mob violence of the early 1960’s and President Johnson’s Great Society of 1964-65 spawned what I call Alinsky-Marxist organizing (AMO) that emerged by 1968. The Marxist slant is individuals erroneously claiming they are victims, much as John the Apostle (d. AD 100). In John 15:18-23, he erroneously accuses me of hate. (That is my opinion: not my judgement.)


AMO zealots have spawned prolifically on the promise that civic disruption can be used to coerce We the People of the United States into submission: a coalition of AMO causes can dominate and overcome the rule of law in the USA. Effecting Zuckert’s concern, AMO motivates the “lawless in practice” and five decades later the contagion has spread to “good men”---honest citizens who have not discovered integrity.


Perhaps Zuckert overlooks the genes, memes, and intentions of We the People of the United States, that portion of fellow citizens who on an individual level trust-in and commit-to the preamble to the U.S. Constitution and the rest of the amendable 1787 U.S. Constitution. Civic citizens care for neither John Locke’s “consent of the people” nor James Madison’s “right of self-government” because they are too busy with the self-discipline of living according to personal preferences yet in peace with both physics (e.g., preferential living is feasible only if earned) and fellow citizens. And equity means more to civic citizens than “equality,” which no entity can provide to human beings. Civic citizens may think a fellow citizen who does not support an agreement for equity under the law, for example, the U.S. preamble’s proposition, should not vote let alone serve on a jury or run for elected or appointed office.


I collaborate to understand the U.S. preamble’s proposition. At this moment, I perceive the proposition as follows: civic citizens of the U.S. collaborate for integrity, justice, peace, defense, and prosperity in order to approve and encourage responsible human liberty to living and future generations.


The dead generations are not involved in the collaboration for the five provisions. Dissidents against the proposition may live in peace as long as they do no harm. If a dissident does harm, he or she may face statutory law enforcement. This is only my articulation. But it is the U.S. preamble’s proposition I offer for public collaboration in my quest for equity under statutory justice in the USA, a worthy goal.


Zuckert, by mentioning “despotism . . . in the 1930s” seems to be accusing Trump of despotism. I suppose he would also call me a despot. I felt the sting of “heretic.” It hurts until you realize the accuser is a heretic against the-objective-truth, which may be discovered and affirmed by invariant evidence rather than human construct. Appreciation for the-objective-truth does not come easy. Often, appreciation is learned from loss and misery (Einstein, 1941) rather than hearing exhortation or reading scripture.


The fact that enough U.S. citizens voted twice for Trump/Pence and are on deck to vote for them the third time and the fourth time is an indication that more Americans treasure responsible human liberty than fellow citizens who enslave for an AMO movement's managers.

We work to move the needle from  2016’s populism---51.1% for Clinton/Kaine---to a 2019 vote that is 66% for Trump/Pence or better if more civic fellow citizens emerge as candidates. The message is that We the People of the United States is on an ineluctable march toward responsible human liberty. Dissidents who work for a religious faction or a political-science faction may continue to express themselves yet also consider the brevity of each individual’s singular opportunity to develop fidelity to the-objective-truth.


Zuckert assesses U.S. politics, I think unconstitutionally, as “our three-cornered political order, which combines popular sovereignty, constitutional democracy, and populism.” A civic culture combines individual self-discipline, a representative republic with the rule of law, and collaboration to discover the-objective-truth. I think the U.S. preamble’s proposition and the 1787 articles that follow it intend a civic culture and am collaborating for it to happen.


I appreciate Zuckert’s work to compose his essay, which seems to build the case against AMO but then spring a surprise accusation of President Trump. Surprise is the writer’s prerogative, but impact belongs to the reader.


*Michael P. Zuckert, "Populism and Our Institutions," National Affairs, Number 39, Spring 2019;




Copyright©2019 by Phillip R. Beaver. All rights reserved. Permission is hereby granted for the publication of all or portions of this paper as long as this complete copyright notice is included.

Thursday, February 14, 2019

Neither classical nor progressive but responsible-civic liberty



Richard M. Reinsch II, in “Liberalism Properly Understood,”* asks:  What liberalism does this country propose? I think the proposition is neither classical liberty nor progressive liberty but responsible civic liberty. The preamble to the U.S. Constitution proposes liberty to willing civic citizens for fellow citizens and posterity---their descendants and new legal immigrants.

Reinsch doubts that the preamble’s subordinate verbs--- form, establish, ensure, provide, promote, and secure---motivate “devotion across the generations.” However, show me the civic fellow citizen who does not want the six goals: integrity, justice, goodwill, defense, prosperity and liberty.  Furthermore, any of the six verbs serves well for all six goals. I’d be satisfied to form integrity, form justice, form goodwill, form defense, form prosperity and form liberty, and secure works fine as surrogate for form.

The U.S. preamble is an individual’s agreement to collaborate for equity under statutory justice. Fellow citizens who reject collaboration for justice are not of the preamble’s subject, “We the People of the United States.” Dissidents to the U.S. preamble’s goals cannot attest to “in order to . . . do ordain and establish.” The articles and laws that come after the preamble either conform to the quest for justice or not. Those that never did either have been or may be amended.

Reinsch’s fervent arguments for Abraham Lincoln’s erroneous use of the Declaration of Independence to trump the U.S. Constitution seem revisionist. For instance, “philosophical, legal, and historical confidence . . . is in the ancient nature of the Constitution, rooted in the English constitutional tradition” seems erroneous at best. Despite English impositions, the suggestion that humans may establish equity under statutory law came from Pericles, 2,500 years ago. The power of the U.S. preamble to overcome British influence is original and was established in 1788, now only 231 years ago.

My history review would restore the preamble’s power, which Congress repressed in 1789. The reform from British tradition that is proposed by the U.S. preamble has been left to our generation.

The purpose of the 1774 war against England was to relieve the 13 eastern seaboard colonies, self-styled states, of the English government, a constitutional church-state partnership with a cooperative king. Revolution began with the liberation of Worcester, MA, September 6, 1774; http://www.revolution1774.org/. In 1781, France was the principal military power and strategist at Yorktown, VA. England surrendered and traveled to Paris to negotiate treaties. The treaty ratified on January 14, 1784 by the thirteen free and independent states names each state.

The states could not have survived as a confederation. The constitutional debates in Philadelphia inspired the committee of forms to express the political results in the preamble. The fact that its subject is “We the People of the United States” rather than “We the United States” is one of the reasons only 39 of 55 delegates signed the 1787 U.S. Constitution. Also, without delegates from Rhode Island, states’ unity could hardly be claimed. The preamble’s intentions to reserve rights to the people and their states are clarified in Federalist 84 by Alexander Hamilton:

Here, in strictness, the people surrender nothing; and as they retain every thing they have no need of particular reservations. "WE, THE PEOPLE of the United States, to secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ORDAIN and ESTABLISH this Constitution for the United States of America." Here is a better recognition of popular rights, than volumes of those aphorisms which make the principal figure in several of our State bills of rights, and which would sound much better in a treatise of ethics than in a constitution of government.

Just as every person may earn the opportunity to choose his or her food, each fellow citizen may collaborate for justice.

The wonder of the American proposition is freedom-from oppression so that each individual may responsibly pursue the happiness he or she wants rather than the dictates of fellow citizens or government. In other words, the preamble’s proposition is self-discipline for individual happiness with civic integrity.

After 231 years of neglect, it is time for fellow citizens to consider the civic, civil, and legal agreement that is offered to the individual including professors and politicians in the U.S. preamble.


Copyright©2019 by Phillip R. Beaver. All rights reserved. Permission is hereby granted for the publication of all or portions of this paper as long as this complete copyright notice is included. Edited 2/21/2019.

Tuesday, January 15, 2019

Non-religious Conservative College-Women? Really?

           Brianna Mirabile, a fellow citizen, president of a chapter of Network of Enlightened Women and promoter of other conservative groups,[1] reports that “politics is the driving force behind a lot of social engagement” at George Washington University.[2] I prefer civic, civil, and legal engagement during the transition to young adulthood and for a complete human lifetime, but without the conflicting mysteries Aristotle would impose.[3] Individuals may use self-reliance (see IPEA, below) to avoid socialization/subjugation by either believers or non-believers; Marxists or capitalists; Alinsky organizations or religious institutions.


Mirabile’s attitudes toward fellow citizens at college offer caution to high school seniors to establish individual civic integrity more than “social morality” as they prepare for college. I realize I propose a human challenge for students entering college, so I express it for K-12 students as well. The challenge is to develop human authenticity fast enough to emerge a human being. Only the human species can pursue individual happiness with civic integrity rather than social morality. College or its equal is potentially among the most wonderful times in a human experience, so it is good for matriculating individuals to aim to be human beings. Note that my words and phrases do not seem socialized or civilized or legal. That’s because they are civic rather than religious or traditional. By “civic” I mean collaborating for statutory justice, a worthy goal if not a possibility.


Mirabile postis “the Constitution, free markets, and individual liberty [as] conservative political positions [that are] transformed into a sign of moral depravation by the left.” What standard of “moral depravation” does she imagine the left applies? She seems to claim the right, but her words seem obfuscating and judgmental when she states, “. . . our beliefs . . . have been proven to help people.” Doesn’t appreciation for help come from the helped person rather than the aid-imposer or philanthropist? No wonder Mirabile seeks a society of believers. But what believers would she reveal if she did not obfuscate them? Is she religious? If so, is she a theist? If so, whose god is her god? Which gods do her believers promote? It’s their private business, of course, but only they need their beliefs. Religious beliefs are private rather than civic. No one wants to specify their personal god for other people to evaluate, yet many believers perceive their god is known by everyone else. In my opinion, my words and phrases do not seem socialized or civilized, because they are civic. In other words, for me, subjection to society or to civilization is not competitive with collaborating for statutory justice.

Belief is insistence that an opinion is stronger than the-objective-truth (ToT). ToT exists, can only be discovered rather than constructed, and does not yield to mystery, revelation, reason, or opinion. ToT is not an accepted phrase in the scholarly world. A litany of scholarly words-and-phrases do not admit that they yield to ToT, including the following: truth or the truth (especially when the proponent capitalizes Truth); objective truth or the objective truth (which is often taken as the “objective truth” so as to discount the-objective-truth); absolute truth or ultimate truth; eternal truth or God’s truth; my truth or your truth; honesty; imagination and fiction; actual reality; the indisputable facts; statutory justice, which may ultimately approach perfection; and speculation (often veiled). ToT is the standard by which morality is measured.

For example, the existence of God, however the believer would define “God,” has been imagined, so far, without disproof. It’s like not ever discovering whether an apparent oasis is a mirage or not, merely because there’s an infinite supply of camels, riders, and supplies that may be used to eternally wander for the phantom oasis. Scholars debate God, as though everyone agrees with the particular scholar, never addressing the fact that their specific God is not accepted by other scholars. It’s a matter of the believer’s intent. The believer does not intend to accept the views of counter believers.

Leibniz (d. 1716) asked, “Why is there something rather than nothing?." He assumed that there is a why. However, evolution progressed according to the laws of physics during the recent 13.8 billion years, and there may be no motives or inspiration---no why. The physics behind ToT exists, and the evidence may ultimately be discovered.

Upon first discovery, humankind may know the-objective-evidence yet may remain open-minded to future discovery that changes their view of ToT. In other words, humans cannot aspire to be God, and therefore individuals must be open to future discovery that changes their view of ToT. Open-mindedness is not novel: it reflects the first premise of the scientific method of study: admit to yourself you do not know when you do not know. Some people mistake science as an object rather than a process, and some accept pseudoscience as an object rather than speculation.

I’m writing these ideas in my eighth decade of limited, open-minded living that was nevertheless plagued by fear. Like Mirable, I entered my freshman year at college with a “biggest fear,” but it had nothing to do with “forming true and lasting friendships.” I hated giving up violin practice, convinced I would never have the necessary talent for livelihood. I feared whether or not my “B+” grades in high school prepared me to survive my land-grant university’s freshman cut, with the added load of ROTC. In other words, was my general comprehension adequate for me to succeed in college? Not only that, I wanted a degree in chemical engineering and had no idea how Mom and Dad would pay for it after my savings and theirs ran out. I earned a position in the Cooperative Engineering Scholarship program and paid my way over five years’ college instead of four. I mutually developed friends, some I consider friends for life even though our paths parted, but I wanted to be a person in the world of persons—a minnow in oceans rather than a small fish in a large pond. Nevertheless, I relish friendship when it comes.

However, I took every opportunity to expand my comprehension of the-objective-truth, even though I could not then articulate my intentions. For example, my term paper in sophomore English was on Hinduism. I knew well that I wanted to explore a competitor with Mom and Dad’s beliefs: their individual visions of salvation of the soul in heaven. I had heard of reincarnation. (Also, I learned hygienic yoga to the extent that I sniffed a cotton string into the right nostril, coughed it out, and “flossed.” Then switched to the left nostril. I slowly acquired a nasal toughness.) Back to the spiritual, I got the vague idea that a soul could develop enough goodness so as to rejoin the World Soul or ultimate reality, I recall Brahman. With that, I decided that one religion was good enough for my person, whether a soul is involved or not. I had never questioned my existence or a soul before conception and felt no need to try to influence my afterdeath, that vast time after body, mind, and person stop functioning. Hinduism helped me feel comfortable that I do not know that traditions older than Mom and Dad’s are false. It affirmed my trust-in and commitment to the-objective-truth, whatever it is. Five decades’ conversations with Kishon Seth (d. 2018) and other neighbors helped me.

I preferred American literature to English literature and only now would express that the latter discourages the pursuit of individual happiness with civic integrity by favoring tradition. Also, in 1965, I chose the elective course “The Philosophy of Science.” Cecil Schneer (d. 2017) wrote,[4] “Second, it is the aim of this work to show science as one aspect of our common culture insuperably bound to the intellectual evolution of society.” Yesterday’s discoveries required the neologisms that empower the human imagination for new discovery. For example, “black hole” appeared in 1967.[5] Schneer did not seem to reference Albert Einstein’s 1941 speech.[6] Einstein applied physics to psychology by asserting that when we lie we disclose our privations and invite loss and misery. The principle is expressed by Rudyard Kipling when primitive women cut a presumed god’s skin to show that the village king bled.[7] (Now in the second half of my eighth decade, I could not have written these thoughts when I was a college senior beginning my third decade. So what? I think I benefitted from an open mind.)

Not only did I fear my freshman year in college, I feared my career into the fifth year of service. In 1971, I thought: rather than student I am the chemical engineer who is responsible to all stakeholders for this assignment, especially the public regarding safety and security. I started new assignments by reviewing the pertinent chemical engineering literature or other literature and thus never stopped learning. One of my most helpful experiences was Dale Carnegie’s course.[8] I’m still learning to listen.

But I know of no fear greater than the fear of falling in love with an authentic woman. An authentic woman has taken care of herself for life before and after each moment. She’s aware that she may produce the ovum that could become a human person---perhaps 400 ova during her fertile years. Whereas some men develop a sense of responsibility, many women are intuitively caring. A possible cultural lag between male authenticity and female intuition toward caring may explain Mirabel’s promotion of women believers rather than human beings in general. However, habitual civic infidelity by some women cannot be ignored.

The possible human individual was previously an ovum that was fertilized. It takes 3 decades if a typically fertilized ovum is gestated and delivered by his or her mom and then transitions into a person with the understanding and intent to live a complete human life. Many persons die young. By complete life I mean developing both chronological and psychological maturity.[9] By psychological maturity I mean the individual discovery that fidelity to ToT is a favorable personal policy.

Fortunate is the man who, upon meeting the woman who could fall in love with him, perceives she represents a potential crowd. Knowing this, he has the humility to commit to care for both her and her ova in monogamy for life. If she and he conceive persons, their family prepares so that the spouses’ grandchildren may have a possibility to pursue an achievable better future. I write this now, but there is no way I could have articulated monogamy for life when I entered the commitment and trust with my wonderful, witty wife (MWWW) and then our children. I began conflicted by traditional belief in Dad’s expressions, for example, “God is boss in this house.”[10] She rejected those ideas: I reformed. I think the cultural failure to teach in public schools how to form and maintain worthy human connections is responsible for Mirable’s unfortunate misguidance. Most societies delude the individual’s potential to commit to fidelity to ToT.

Fear is unfortunate and ruinous, so I do all I can to persuasively express my experiences and observations regarding fidelity to ToT. I am still developing civic integrity. Nevertheless, given the chance to live my life again with exactly the same events and consequences, I would happily do so, egocentric as that may be. I asked MWWW to consider that statement, and she agreed with it for both her and me and our monogamy. Monogamy for life happens through fidelity to ToT by spouses and their families. Since I do not know the whole of ToT, there may be a better way, much as I doubt. I would like to consider an achievable, better lifestyle.

Mirabile describes the dichotomy she perceives in military terms: “. . . face the same battles . . .  stand strong, be brave, and resist the temptation to temper our beliefs . . .” Her apparent enemy is “the campus left,” who, as “social justice warriors,” ostracize, politically correct, “other,” and bully her as “morally depraved.” Mirabile’s civic militancy comes from “fear of social rejection.” What people need is humility to collaborate for civic integrity, allowing other individuals the opportunity to reject collaboration if they choose to.

Her militancy toward socialist professors could be replaced with patience and recognition that they may yet become attracted to civic integrity but not by her stonewalling or arrogance. She may be available if they propose to talk. Learning how to be an authentic person without inviting the professor to grade unfairly is part of the college experience. The first principle is to focus on the course material rather than social debate. Second, risk grade-point average only for those courses that are essential to your college journey. In other words, don’t subject yourself to an immoral professor if you don’t need the course anyway.

Collaboration for civic integrity is no synonym for cooperation or subjugation in order to receive social acceptance. In civic integrity, both sides collaborate to discover ToT and use it to responsibly pursue individual happiness. Some biased professors may never reform, but they always face fellow citizens who collaborate to discover ToT regarding the course topic. Many professors err by forgetting that they are first fellow citizens and that their students face discoveries the professor can neither imagine nor teach.[11] Some professors simply have egocentric practices.

Fellow citizens are not unlike spouses. Just as an authentic male is faithful to an authentic female, the authentic left and the reliable right collaborate for mutual, comprehensive, safety and security. Thereby, individuals may collaborate for statutory justice, and most fellow citizens may enjoy individual happiness with civic integrity. Whereas 2019’s fellow citizens seem split at just over 50%, there is historical evidence that collaboration to discover ToT rests at about 2/3 for justice and 1/3 in error with the possibility to reform. For example, 2/3 of the framers of the U.S. Constitution signed the document, and 2/3 of delegates to the nine state-ratifying-conventions voted yes. In citing these facts, I am asserting that the U.S. preamble is a worthy civic, civil, and legal agreement.

Some guidelines for college freshman to consider for developing mutual, comprehensive safety and security while on campus include the following:

1.    Each human being inalienably has the individual power, the individual energy, and the individual authority (IPEA) to develop either infidelity or integrity to ToT (the-objective-truth).

a.     The young human cannot predict what he or she wants her or his adult person to achieve.

                                                          i.    However, every choice during life’s path can be made in integrity.

                                                         ii.    Error may not be developed as habit that leads to ruin.

                                                        iii.    Yet recovery is always possible:  Never accept ruin.

b.    Neither gods nor governments can help the individual develop fidelity. That is, IPEA cannot be consigned to an institution or another individual.

c.     Other fellow citizens may reject a person, but the rejected person need not react by withdrawal from collaboration to discover ToT.

d.    The young may add to their individual experiences observation of how different mature adults employed IPEA and the consequences.

2.    Fellow citizens may either collaborate for equity under law or conflict for dominant opinion.

a.     Some citizens collaborate first to discover inequity then to amend the law so as to pursue statutory justice, impossible as perfection may be.

b.    Some citizens think infidelity pays. Thus, there will always be dissidents to justice.

                                                          i.    Therefore, statutory law and its enforcement are essential.

                                                         ii.    A civic people authorize law enforcement and the military to own the monopoly on physical force.

                                                        iii.    There are anarchists.

c.     Fellow citizens may suffer tyranny but need not allow oppression to ruin individual pursuit of integrity.

d.    IPEA is so powerful that many humans ultimately reject the coercion of dominant opinion.

3.    For U.S. citizens, the agreement to develop statutory justice is stated in the preamble to the U.S. Constitution (the U.S. preamble).

a.     Citizens create a dichotomy: those who adopt the agreement to behave according to civic discipline and dissidents, both fellow citizens.

b.    Among dissidents, there are a few traitors.

c.     Illegal aliens cannot be traitors, because the U.S. preamble is not their agreement to consider.

d.    Citizens appreciate fellow citizens as they are and where they are as long as there is no actual harm that the public discovers.

                                                          i.    Even if a dissident’s behavior subjects her or him to law enforcement

1.    Even the death penalty

                                                         ii.    Civic citizens hope their example influences dissidents to reform

e.    Even though they are dependent, children are persons, individuals, and fellow citizens.

                                                          i.    Minors do not own property and therefore ought not assume future debt.

                                                         ii.    The governments and gods that impose debt on children are immoral.

                                                        iii.    Each person is appreciated as a fellow citizen but may deserve disfavor or constraint due to criminal behavior.

f.     The U.S. preamble offers an areligious rather than so-called secular agreement

                                                          i.    Existence of God remains un-disproven, so theism or competitive god-theory such as atheism is not favored

                                                         ii.    Evaluation of a fellow citizen’s god is a private rather than civic function.

                                                        iii.    Fellow citizens my not impose god evaluations on other citizens.

                                                        iv.    Fellow citizens collaborate about their gods only under private, mutual agreement but not under the U.S. preamble.

                                                         v.    Religion is a private practice for mature adults and therefore should not be imposed on children.

                                                        vi.    Failure to separate church from state is failure to adopt the agreement that is offered in the U.S. preamble.

                                                       vii.    Under the U.S. preamble, every civic, civil, and legal religion, society, or association may flourish.

g.    The U.S. preamble is neutral to religion, race, skin color, ethnicity, wealth, profession, heritage, property, gender; in short, physics and its progeny, biology, psychology, mathematics, etc..

h.    Foreigners cannot possibly comprehend what it means to want to be an American citizen---to want to adopt the U.S. preamble’s agreement.

                                                          i.    The English are especially estranged from the U.S. preamble’s agreement.

1.    The U.S. psychological revolution from colonial British dominance has barely begun.

2.    The American Bar Association is substantially responsible for repression of the U.S. preamble’s civic, civil, and legal agreement.

3.    The progression from factional Protestantism to Judeo-Christianity is also culpable.

a.     Imposing theism in public debate is believer error, correctable through civic integrity.

b.    Freedom of theism, in particular Christianity, is a colonial British imposition that is negated by the U.S. preamble, yet to be established.

                                                         ii.    It is important for fellow citizens to rely on the U.S. preamble rather than English tradition or other foreign opinion such as the social democracy that dominates parts of Europe.

                                                        iii.    Equal justice under law is a controversial principle from Athenian Greeks about 2400 years ago.[12]

1.    The U.S. preamble tacitly pursues statutory justice, impossible as perfection may be.

2.    Equity does not impose a particular god.

A fellow citizen may accept stonewalling by another citizen without forfeiting appreciation. For example, a collaborator told me he no longer wanted inclusion on my acknowledgements page because he wanted to disassociate me. I took his last name off the page, but left the first name. A fellow citizen may withdraw support for my work and not speak to me but cannot terminate appreciation for her or his prior contributions or collaboration. A couple fellow citizens have called my writing “condescending.” I ask:  How does a human establish the authority to declare condescension, especially when the speaker claims not to know the whole of the-objective-truth?

In other words, if a fellow citizen rejects your thoughts or you, you can only accept their action, but can still exercise civic integrity---still appreciate her or him as a fellow citizen on her or his personal path possibly toward civic integrity.

With so much involved in self-discovery over the course of a lifetime, it does not make sense to try to understand what a society demands of the individual. The Marxist-Alinsky organizations (AMO) that dominate college campuses could not care less for the individual’s life. The religious institutions offer no better hope for individual happiness with civic integrity. While Alinsky expressed personal “rights” as physical violence,[13] religious institutions offer psychological violence to try to impose hate.[14]

I hope the college freshman who considers experiences and observations expressed by a perhaps maturing fellow citizen may find at least one useful idea. The chief suggestions include IPEA, the U.S. preamble’s agreement, ToT, grandchildren, worthy human connections, human authenticity, and individual happiness with civic integrity. Whatever ideas prove useful I urge the college freshman to share with a friend in K-12, because that’s where the civic revolution is most needed. Civic integrity is an obligation to fellow citizens.



[3] James V. Schall,Aristotle and the Seriousness of Politics,” Law & Liberty, November 16, 2018, online at https://www.lawliberty.org/2018/11/16/aristotle-and-the-seriousness-of-politics/.
[4] Cecil J. Schneer, The Evolution of Physical Science, Grove Press, NY, 1960, Page xiv.
[5] Online at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_holes_in_fiction#Golden_Age.
[6] Albert Einstein, Out of My Later Years, Philosophical Library, NY, pp. 114-115. The essay online at https://samharris.org/my-friend-einstein/.
[7] Rudyard Kipling, “The Man Who Would be King,” W.H. Wheeler Co., British India, 1888.
[8] Online at https://www.dalecarnegie.com.
[9] H. A. Overstreet, The Mature Mind, W.W. Norton, NY, 1949.
[10]Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord.” Ephesians 5:22.
[11] Kahlil Gibran, “On Children,” in “The Prophet,” Alfred A. Knoph, 1923, online at http://www.katsandogz.com/onchildren.html. I recommend suppressing the religious tone of the message so as to consider the exponential pace of discovery.
[12] Online at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_justice_under_law.
[13] Online at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OsfxnaFaHWI. Listen to Alinsky’s answer to a student’s question during the last couple of minutes.
[14] For example, consider and interpret John 15:18-24.


Copyright©2019 by Phillip R. Beaver. All rights reserved. Permission is hereby granted for the publication of all or portions of this paper as long as this complete copyright notice is included. Revised 1/20/2019.

Wednesday, November 28, 2018

Forget fusionism and develop civic integrity


Lee Edwards’ essay, “Toward a New Fusionism,” National Affairs, No. 36, Summer 2018, tacitly lays the groundwork for acceptance of an available culture wherein inhabitants may voluntarily offer mutual, comprehensive safety and security---the human being’s common good. In this culture, a civic people collaborate for individual happiness with civic integrity and develop statutory justice whereby dissidents such as criminals are constrained and encouraged to reform. A neglected agreement to collaborate is offered (since 1788) in the preamble to the U.S. Constitution, hereafter “the U.S. preamble.”

A culture of Security may be established through three collaborations: for civic integrity, under a civic agreement, and practicing the process to discover the-objective-truth. By “civic” I mean behavior that provides individual happiness with mutual, comprehensive safety and security rather than supports competition for a dominant opinion.

This way of living may emerge from “the conservative movement” if conservatives forego emphasis on “tradition” so as aid human living at the leading edge of integrity. The-objective-truth may be discovered but cannot be constructed by reason. In other words, the-objective-truth does not respond to reason or other human constructs.

Conservatives of all types are more likely than social democrats to choose to discover the-objective-truth and understand how to benefit. In other words, conservatives are more likely to acquire the self-discipline to conform to the-objective-truth yet strive for individual happiness. That is, by developing fidelity to the-objective-truth, conservatives may maintain civic integrity without compromise, surrender, or subjugation to others. In other words, conservatives may choose to neither initiate nor tolerate deceit.

Integrity is a process: do the work to understand whether what is perceived is actually real or a mirage; do the work to understand how to benefit from the discovery; behave so as to benefit; publically declare the benefits obtained by the behavior; listen to public reactions to the understanding so as to collaborate for mutual improvement; remain open minded for discovery that requires change in behavior so as to lessen misery and loss.

The framers of the 1787 Constitution had negotiated a clean revolution from the influence of colonial England. However, the signers (2/3 of the delegates) knew that some debates had not resolved weaknesses, so they provided for future amendment by the people. The preamble states the purpose and goals of legally changing the Confederation of States to a Union to serve the people in their states. Some framers objected to the clean break from Blackstone common law with its clergy partnership, some wanted the states to control the nation, and other complaints kept 1/3 of framers from being 1787 signers.

The required nine states ratified the legal change on June 21, 1788. The next day, dissenting states were separate countries, as specified in the 1783 Treaty of Paris. But within two months, two more states joined, so there were eleven states when the U.S. began operating on March 4, 1789.

The Union grew to 33 states when in 1861, War Between the States over the erroneous Biblical opinion that slavery is a god’s plan exploded. The offender, the Confederate States of America, listed grievances then declared secession, concluding that there could be no peaceful settlement because the north was influenced by “more erroneous religious belief.” The erroneous belief was that blacks were slaves because of previous sin and that only God could decide when repentance had been served. The erroneous religion persisted for at least a century after the Union’s military power settled two questions: may states secede without military dominance over the Union and is slavery ultimately intended?

A remarkable reform occurred with the civil rights and voter-rights acts of 1964-5, but five decades after that have been a disaster. AMO---Alinsky-Marxist organization has created one victim identity after another: race, gender, sexual preference, gender preference, and coalitions of special identities. Christianity, the offender against the preamble, has victimized itself with factional child abuse and parishioner abuse as well as the 1968 emergence of African-American Christianity. What civic agreement in Africa attracts a black American to choose tribal division as African-American? Did African-American Christianity originate in America, Ethiopia, or where? What happens now?

We the People of the United States may, at last, consider and promote the civic agreement that is offered in the preamble to the U.S. Constitution. By that agreement rather than arbitrary classism, the people---fellow citizens as well as resident aliens---divide into the willing and the dissident. The willing people collaborate for individual happiness with civic integrity and discipline local, state, and national governments so as to constrain fellow citizens who cause actually-real harm. Neglected and repressed since June 21, 1788, it will take a few years for the preamble’s agreement to become influential for civic integrity.

Like the consensus attempted by Frank Meyer built on the fear of communism, the people now face a common danger: popular conversion of the American republic into a social democracy. Awareness of this threat can emerge from both the left and the right. However, both sides must turn their backs on scholarly phrases that establish political separation---phrases like “ordered liberty,” “classical liberals, “the Founders,” and “blue-collar billionaire.” Most importantly, conservatives may decide that they do not want civic collaboration about the characteristics of their gods or other traditions, and lead in the separation of church from state at last. The Republicans could lead the amendment of the First Amendment so as to defend and promote every individual’s pursuit of civic integrity, leaving religion or spirituality or none as a private choice.

If there is a new fusionism conference, it ought not to try to go back to 1776’s “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” I hope these ideas can be presented. “Fusionist John McGinnis” (quoting Edwards) could choose to be the champion. McGinnis may have observed in just two years our change in focus from the U.S. preamble as the civic, civil, and legal agreement under which fellow citizens may collaborate for statutory justice to its leading edge vision of individual happiness with civic integrity.


Copyright©2018 by Phillip R. Beaver. All rights reserved. Permission is hereby granted for the publication of all or portions of this paper as long as this complete copyright notice is included.

Zuckert: insoluble free speech

            This is Phil Beaver’s biased interpretation of Michael P. Zuckert’s essay, “The Insoluble Problem of Free Speech,” National Affairs, No. 37, Fall 2018; https://www.nationalaffairs.com/publications/detail/the-insoluble-problem-of-free-speech. My bias promotes the agreement to develop civic self-discipline that is offered in the U.S. preamble.

Free speech is always controversial, but it is not an insoluble problem for the self-reliant individual in the U.S. However, in the U.S., the left factions and the right factions seem to have swapped roles, the right now extolling free speech.
After the 1949 Kinsey reports, conservatives resisted libertarianism, especially pornography and alien propaganda. Today, the left resists any speech that favors conservatism of any kind. The current issue is amply discussed, but Zuckert’s article would address the basic reasons for speech controversy for the limited applications he selected.
Speech has three aspects: thought, expression, and consequences (coercion, discovery, liability). A thought is private but its expression and the consequences can draw public attention. The attention may be positive if most thought pursues the-objective-truth. Mendacity begs woe.
John Stuart Mill’s no-harm principle justifies legislation, for example, against yelling “fire!” in a crowded place. Second, his “fairness principle” justifies taxation and military-service obligations.
In some political regimes, the rulers or a cause such as a religion are protected from negative speech. They claim to possess the-objective-truth rendering debate unnecessary. Socrates died under religious accusations he had disproved in court; the jury of 500 found him guilty anyway. In the U.S., “freedom of religion” squelches public development of civic integrity.
Thought cannot be constrained; free speech allows discovery, perhaps of the speaker’s criminal intentions; but only consequences may be dealt with, unfortunately sometimes after the incident. Factions treat these issues differently, sometimes arbitrarily. Consideration of authority to constrain is necessary. ”In a liberal society like America, there is a presumption in favor of liberty of action as well as of thought,” resists the fact that America is a representative republic under the rule of statutory law.
May speech be considered differently depending upon setting such as on campus, in corporations, or in the family? (Also, for a U.S. president, in the military, in the Church, in a radical society, among those who believe in crime, and so on?)
Education is a vehicle for exploring the-objective-truth. Freedom of expression is essential to discovery, and campuses should provide security. Part of education is to learn to avoid alienation over opinion. That is, individual opinion is not the-objective-truth. Students may be encouraged and coached to consider an opposing opinion rather than the person who holds the opinion. Students, throughout life, may collaborate to discover the-objective-truth, leaving how to individually use the discovery to private, responsible preferences.
Zuckert imposes a traditional view of the family, and I oppose his arguments. Parents are obliged to bond for life before starting a family. Their progeny are persons, too. Each child has the daunting task to transition during about three decades from feral infant to young adult with the understanding and intent to live a complete human life. The parents appreciate each child and his or her preparation for a future the parents cannot imagine. The parents and children, the family, collaborates to prosper and to aid a better future for the parents’ grandchildren and beyond. If a majority of people accept the U.S. preamble’s goal “and our Posterity” with a capital “P”, a better future is possible. In a civic culture, the family discusses all topics of interest, including LGBT lifestyles with an intent to understand the-objective-truth, whatever it may be. A youth who is informed and comfortable with family conversation is ready for university life. Zuckert seems to advocate children being dumped into a confused world with home-developed naiveté.
Corporations supply needed or wanted goods or services in a capitalist system that requires managers to comply with the law and employees to submit to management or lose employment. An employee’s arbitrary imposition of a social issue beyond the work environment is grounds for discharge. In other words, the employee may have a one-time platform for social speech or a job, but not both free speech and a job. These corporate requirements are expected by the individual who pursues the-objective-truth. In other words, they are consequences of the-objective-truth rather than corporate policy and thus not peculiar to organizations.
The U.S. still struggles to overcome British colonization. The case of “seditious libel” came from British tradition and is one case of U.S. independence from colonial influence. “In 1798, the federal government passed the first national sedition law, aimed at protecting federal authorities from the criticism they had been receiving from the Democratic-Republican Party (led by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison). [Madison argued that the] ability to criticize those in power is essential to democratic politics [and the] point of free and robust political exchange is to discover truths about matters relevant to governance.”
Speech may be evaluated respecting the pursuit of the-objective-truth in any institution. In colleges, collaboration to discover the-objective-truth must be unfettered. In the family, the parents cannot imagine the future their children and grandchildren face and therefore cannot risk expressing anything less than the-objective-truth. In corporations, economic viability is paramount. In government, tradition must be dealt with regardless of willful politicians and the clergymen who are in partnership with them. (In England and colonial America under British control, the clergy-politician partnership in Parliament is constitutional, whereas in America the unconstitutional tradition needs reform.)
Fellow citizens need not fear free speech to or from anyone as long as most individuals remain self-reliant. Self-reliance is possible with the focus on the-objective-truth. I do not agree with Zuckert’s claim that the challenge of free speech is insoluble.


Copyright©2018 by Phillip R. Beaver. All rights reserved. Permission is hereby granted for the publication of all or portions of this paper as long as this complete copyright notice is included.