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. Individuals should use self-reliance to avoid socialization by believers.

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. Only the human species can pursue individual happiness with civic integrity rather than social morality. College 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.

Mirabile defends “the Constitution, free markets, and individual liberty [as] conservative political positions . . . transformed into a sign of moral depravation by the left.” She seems to claim the right, but her words seem obfuscating and judgmental when she states, “. . . our beliefs . . . have been proven to help people.” No wonder she 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 god does her believers promote? It’s their private business, of course, but only they need their beliefs.

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 capitalized; objective truth or the objective truth, which is often taken as 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 only approach perfection; and speculation (often veiled).

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. Scholars debate God, never addressing the fact that their definition of God is not accepted by other scholars. It’s a matter of the believer’s intent.

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 be ultimately 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.

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 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. 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 instead of four.

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, and I knew very well that I wanted to explore a competitor with Mom and Dad’s beliefs: salvation of the soul in heaven. I had heard of reincarnation. I learned hygienic yoga to the extent that I sniffed a cotton string into one nostril, coughed it out, and “flossed” that nostril. Then switched nostrils. I acquired a nasal toughness. More importantly, I got the vague idea that a soul could become so good as to rejoin the World Soul. In the end, I decided that one religion was good enough for my person, whether a soul is involved or not. In other words, I had never questioned my existence before conception and felt no need to try to influence my afterdeath, that vast time after body, mind, and person stop functioning.

I preferred American literature to English literature and only now would express that the latter discourages the pursuit of individual happiness with civic integrity. Also, in 1965, I chose the elective course “The Philosophy of Science.” Cecil Schneer (d. 2017) wrote,[3] “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.” Schneer did not seem to reference Albert Einstein’s 1941 speech, “The Laws of Science and the Laws of Ethics,”[4] which I interpret to assert that we don’t lie because physics will disclose our privations in loss and misery. (In the second half of my eighth decade, I could not have written these thoughts when I was a college senior.)

Not only did I fear my freshman year in college, I feared my career into the fifth year of service. Then I thought: rather than student I am the chemical engineer who is responsible to all stakeholders for this assignment. I always started by reviewing the pertinent chemical engineering literature or other literature and thus never stopped learning. One of my most helpful courses was Dale Carnegie’s “How to Win Friends and Influence People.” 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 today, aware that during her fertile years she may produce the ova that could become human persons---perhaps 400 ova. Whereas some men acquire a searching sense of responsibility, many women are intuitively caring.

It takes 3 decades if a typically fertilized ovum transitions into an individual with the understanding and intent to live a complete human life. By complete I mean developing both chronological and psychological maturity.[5] By psychological maturity I mean the individual discovery that fidelity to ToT is a favored 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 they conceive persons, their family prepares for the spouses’ grandchildren to have a possibility to pursue a 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 wife. I think the cultural failure to teach in public schools how to form worthy human connections is responsible for Mirable’s unfortunate misguidance.

Fear is unfortunate and ruinous, so I do all I can to persuasively express my experiences and observations regarding fidelity to ToT, which I am still personally developing. 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 my wife to consider that statement, and she agreed with it. Monogamy for life happens through fidelity to ToT by spouses and their families.

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 is needed 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. 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. Collaboration for civic integrity is no synonym for cooperation or subjugation for social acceptance. It means both sides collaborate to discover ToT and use it to responsibly pursue individual happiness with civic integrity. Some biased professors may never reform, but they always face fellow citizens who collaborate to discover ToT regarding the course topic.

Fellow citizens are not unlike spouses. Just as an authentic male is faithful to an authentic female, the authentic left and the authentic 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 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.

Some guidelines for college freshman to consider for developing mutual, comprehensive safety and security 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.

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

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

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

2.    Fellow citizens may either collaborate for equity under law and to develop statutory justice or conflict for dominant opinion.

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

b.    Some citizens think infidelity pays. Therefore, statutory law and its enforcement are essential: a civic people authorize law enforcement and the military to own the monopoly on physical force.

c.     There will always be dissidents to justice. Fellow citizens may suffer tyranny but need not allow oppression to ruin their individual pursuit of integrity.

d.    IPEA is so powerful that most 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.

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

b.    Among dissidents, there are a few traitors.

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

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

                                                          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

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

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

e.    The preamble offers an areligious rather than so-called secular agreement

                                                          i.    Existence of God remains un-disproven, so theism or competitive god-theory including 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.

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

g.    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.

                                                         ii.    It is important for fellow citizens to rely on the U.S. preamble rather than English tradition.

                                                        iii.    Equal justice under law is a controversial principle from Athenian Greeks about 2400 years ago.[6]

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

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 with 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.

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 on their personal path in fellow citizenship and toward civic integrity.

I hope the college freshman who considers experiences and observations expressed by someone in their eighth decade of individual, civic living may find at least one useful idea herein. The chief ideas expressed include IPEA, the U.S. preamble’s agreement, ToT, grandchildren, worthy human connections, and individual happiness with civic integrity. Civic integrity is an obligation to fellow citizens.

[3] Cecil J. Schneer, The Evolution of Physical Science, Grove Press, NY, 1960, Page xiv.
[4] Albert Einstein, Out of My Later Years, Philosophical Library, NY, pp. 114-115. The essay online at https://samharris.org/my-friend-einstein/.
[5] H. A. Overstreet, The Mature Mind, W.W. Norton, NY, 1949.
[6] Online at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_justice_under_law.

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 1/16/2019 to include more endnotes.

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 naivet√©.
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. 

Friday, November 23, 2018

Applying Harvey C. Mansfield’s “worthy speech”


This is Phil Beaver’s paraphrase and biased interpretation of Mansfield’s essay, “The Value of Free Speech,” National Affairs, No. 37, Fall 2018; https://www.nationalaffairs.com/publications/detail/the-value-of-free-speech. My bias promotes the agreement to civic self-discipline that is offered in the U.S. preamble.
Unfortunately, Mansfield uses the term “worthy speech” without relating it to collaboration for the-objective-truth. Instead, he promotes traditional, mysterious political-lordship. His only two uses of “truth” relate to opinion rather than actual reality. The U.S. preamble offers a civic, civil, and legal agreement by which fellow citizens may collaborate to discover civic integrity and manage elected and appointed officials at local, state, and federal levels in order to empower each individual’s responsible happiness.

Worthy speech

            So far, “our liberalism” in the US has valued free speech to the exclusion of understanding worthy speech. But for what function is speech important? I think the worthy speech collaborates for civic integrity.
            Falsely shouting “fire!” is forbidden, because harm may result. But that’s about the extent of judicial interest in anything but permitting speech. But what is “the value of normal, non-obscene speech?
            “Speech consists in giving reasons,” and distinguishes human talk from animal talk. It empowers concern rather than indifference. But it can be used to deceive, to gain power, or to rule. “Even a lie must make sense” in order to empower abuse. Humans do not subjugate themselves to tyrants unless the reasons make sense to the people. Albert Einstein informed us that civic citizens do not lie so as to lessen misery and loss.

Erroneous traditions

            Intellectuals like John Stewart Mill held that individual freedom demands speech for every audience. But false speech and nearly true speech do not help direct civilization. The Supreme Court exacerbated this problem by making speech a subset of expression. For example, not saluting the flag is speech for religious reasons, and there are other examples of word as act. “Freedom of expression” supplanted “freedom of speech.”
            If freedom of expression is absolute, dispute of worthiness has no power. Saluting the flag becomes ceremonial rather than an influence on fellow citizens and has only a religious meaning. And the more speech becomes an art form, the more obscure its message becomes. Civic speech becomes reduced to entertainment, protest, obstruction, profanity, and violence. “Shouting and screaming take precedence over persuasion or threaten to become the normal means of persuasion.”
            Valuing intensity rather than worthiness lessens speech as much as egoism does. Worthiness derives from “a call to justice” rather than personal favor. Whereas Plato writes for statutory justice, Nietzsche merely wants to win the dominant opinion. Socrates perhaps thought he acted nobly to die to uphold the rule of law, even though the jury lied about events and attacked Socrates’ character.
Character assassination is popular in politics, especially when the opposition claims a leader is a demagogue. Political scientists team with social scientists to concoct statistics that support their bid for power, creating subjective opinions that support their interests. Surveys are turned into “objective data.” Manipulation of statistics imposes policy on the people. Thereby, the people never express their preferences: there is no free speech in politics.

Not worthy if not spoken with frank humility

            Worthy speech needs to promote itself against its enemies, artistic self-expression and self-interest, yet preserve the enemies’ freedoms. This challenge can by met by free citizens more than by free humans. That is, civic integrity is possible only within a country rather than for the whole world. Speech that collaborates to discover statutory justice is worthy and other speech is tolerated. Can reason guide statutory justice?

Reason an insufficient human construct

            Statutory justice offers freedom-from oppression so as to have the liberty-to responsibly pursue individual happiness rather than the dictates of another. “By responsibly” means without preventing another’s opportunity. Thus, individuals collaborate for mutual, comprehensive safety and security (scholars might label it “the common good”) or civic discipline. Civic citizens manage their governments, providing political liberty, and electable politicians are first civic citizens.
Civic citizens who pursue the arts, which are human expressions that may or may not represent the-objective-truth, have no monopoly on the discovery of civic integrity. The-objective-truth emerges from physics, the object rather than its study, and physics does not react to reason. Thus, I am disputing the convention that humans subject to reason. The human being is ultimately too powerful to subject to anything but the-objective-truth. The human being accepts that the body, the mind, and the person stop functioning at death. Hope that a soul lives on is a human construct that so far has not been disproven. Therefore, rejecting the construct is unobjectionable.

The mysterious basis of tyranny

Yet, some artistic humans posit that death may be mysteriously defeated. They require the private pursuit of the mystery in addition to collaboration for civic integrity. Thereby, the artist may pursue individual happiness in the metaphysical. However, he or she must accept the economic burden of pursuing the metaphysical, in order to maintain civic integrity. Economic viability is a matter of necessity rather than of consent. Civic citizens who do not believe in souls do not want and should not bear the expense of pursuing rewards for souls.
The artist uses Chapter XI Machiavellianism to persuade the many to expect economic viability. Metaphysically, the abuses of the political artist are intended by the people’s gods, but the mystery of their god’s justice will emerge in the (evidently distant) future. In other words, the politician is exempt from blame for partnering with the clergy, because the believers are “establishing” the rewards for their souls. A minority of citizens resist the tyranny, but believers, in the majority, impose on non-believers anyway. The Chapter XI Machiavellians nominate candidates for office that participate in the tyranny, keeping the non-metaphysical minority from effectiveness. ”Liberty for the few can be available if exercised with care so that it does not reach the attention of the public authority.” I did not discern Mansfield’s definition of “public authority,” but I think the-objective-truth is the public authority.

Many people want to live without self-discipline rather than govern fellow citizens

Politicians recognize that the people do not want to take charge of civic integrity beyond disciplining their own behavior. The church-state partnership offers to lead for a price: freedom of the masses. And voluntary slavery has no corrective power. Yielding to government seems a necessity for self-preservation. Also, many people are bemused by banal appetites and never develop personal integrity much less civic integrity. Yielding to pleasure and pain becomes habitual, and worthy speech has no appeal. Only the end of economic viability, either by war or by depletion of resources, could motivate change. Fidelity to the-objective-truth offers relief.
Humor may offer temporary relief, but wit is another art form that can obscure the worthy expression. For example, Nicolo Machiavelli wrote in irony to warn us of various political powers yet save his own life. Scholars debate his message 505 years later. “We also need . . . economic liberty to make us prosperous, artistic liberty to make our lives beautiful — but these are not as serious as political liberty.” Worthy expression is essential for developing civic integrity rather than establishing the dominant opinion or the allowable preference. However, some fellow citizens receive Machiavelli’s warnings as support for their individual judgment and preferences.

Civic integrity a worthy common good

Both worthy speech and political power struggle for civic integrity. The “common good” is mutual, comprehensive safety and security, and individual happiness may conform to civic integrity. That is, every citizen’s individual happiness must either accommodate the other citizen’s responsible pursuits or suffer constraint. The elites among the people, for example, the philosophers, have had ample time to discover the-objective-truth and promote personal discipline and fidelity by elected and appointed officials. Only when the philosophers are listening to and comporting to the people’s worthy speech can civic integrity be developed. With worthy speech derived from self-discipline, fellow citizens may influence their elected representatives to maintain and improve civic integrity.

A traditional division of the political artists

Despite 230 years or 12 generations with the U.S. preamble’s agreement offered to fellow citizens, allegiance is divided not between citizens who want to collaborate for civic integrity and dissidents, but by party: the party of the many and the party of the few. Within each party there is an oligarchy, and it may but may not vie for civic integrity, whether influencing the whole party or not. Regardless of intentions, the oligarchy knows that Chapter XI Machiavellianism influences the people to favor the policy that claims to comport to the will of the believer’s personal god. In theory, without a personal god, a human is no better than biology’s other placental mammals.
Both Aristotle and James Madison erroneously viewed government as a whole comprised of the few who managed the necessary many. However, the few is not above the agreement that is stated in the U.S. preamble. There are no lords of the U.S. preamble’s agreement. Election entails the commitment to fulfill the office that is authorized by fellow citizens, but does not qualify the elected official to arbitrary lordship of any kind.
But Madison infamously said, “Before any man can be considered as a member of Civil Society, he must be considered as a subject of the Governour of the Universe.” I doubt Madison liked the U.S. preamble. Aristotle and Madison seemed to think, “Democracy speaks for mankind as one individual human to another; oligarchy speaks for humanity as a whole vis-√†-vis the rest of the world or the universe.” The U.S. preamble indeed addresses a universal purpose and human goals, but the agreement applies only to fellow citizens.

The U.S. preamble offers responsible, individual happiness

Every human being may develop the individual power, the individual energy, and the individual authority (IPEA) to develop civic integrity or not. When most of the citizens in a country develop IPEA, the country may develop civic integrity, electing officials who comport to civic integrity. Fidelity to the-objective-truth is essential rather than noble.

The nation struggles for psychological independence

Mansfield erroneously extols the Declaration of Independence’s signers’ tacit claims that the King of England is just a man and that Congress serves better than Parliament for the states. And, as Mansfield has pointed out earlier, a pledge is merely a symbol.
America’s physical independence was won under the military strategy and might of France, especially in the deciding victory at Yorktown, VA (1781) leading to the Treaty of Paris (1783) Why Paris? Further, Mansfield seems ignorant of the liberation of Worcester, MA in September 1774, by the hands of thousands of Massachusetts farmers. I suspect scholarly support of Mansfield opinion more than ignorance. However, America’s psychological independence is yet to be established.
An elected official is not a quality citizen if he or she does not develop the-objective-truth as the basis for achieving the goals that are stated in the U.S. preamble. If the official promotes elected officials or the clergy rather than fellow citizens, he or she ought to lose the next election. Yet Mansfield attempts to prove that elected citizens are more equal than voting citizens: quality above quantity. Mansfield may not have admitted he may use IPEA.

Mansfield’s ad hominem, Trump attack

At last, Mansfield gets to his point: given “two great parties, one that wishes to extend and another that wishes to restrict the power of the people . . . the Democrats and the Republicans, who seem as liberals vs. conservatives (the left and the right) to fit this general description.” Even under the non-Republican President Trump, “our two parties are locked in competition between a more quantitative ideal of inclusion and a more qualitative ideal of distinction.” The party oligarchies compete over opinion without appreciating fellow citizens. “Democrats want virtue but in pursuit of equality; Republicans want popularity but from a virtuous people. Democrats imply a whole that is inclusive of all, when each is understood as equal to everyone else; Republicans imply a whole with hierarchy and ranking of those who are better or best at the top.”
Both parties mimic British classism and fail to encourage and coach the power of the individual human being to establish civic integrity. “The standard of the best human is too strict to include all humans, and the class of all humans is too loose to do justice to the best.”

An agreement that offers achievable public goals for worthy choice

Regarding the U.S., Nietzsche erred “to say that man has a thousand and one goals.” The U.S. preamble offers about seven goals and the freedom to either adopt them or not. Independence does not imply dissent, but often, rejection of the U.S. preamble’s agreement is due to the desire to practice some form of dissidence: pretense, classism, crime, evil and other alienations of fellow citizens.
The choice of being a civic citizen who trusts-in and commits-to the purpose and goals of the U.S. preamble is the classical liberalism that conservatives struggle to defend but fail to do so because they do not admit to the-objective-truth. Instead, conservative scholars cite millennia-old thought to propose exclusivism of the few despite the obvious: Elitism is not worthy speech.


There remains the question of how to end a travesty first recorded by Plato, imposed on this continent by the British empire, and maintained these 229 years by the U.S. Congress. Most of the fellow citizens, perhaps 2/3, may adopt the civic agreement that is offered in the U.S. preamble and may collaborate to discover the-objective-truth. It is a commitment-to personal self-discipline and statutory justice so as to hold local, state, and federal officials to the U.S. preamble’s agreement. Together, the U.S. preamble and the-objective-truth offer individual happiness.
Worthy speech promotes mutual, comprehensive safety and security according to the-objective-truth. Forgetting “our liberalism,” only conservatives who collaborate for civic integrity may claim they propose responsible individual happiness.
I am grateful to Harvey C. Mansfield for laying out the background on which I could make my case for the U.S. preamble’s tacit offering: individual happiness with civic integrity.

Postscript (11/24-25/18)

            The vision that may emerge from my interpretation of Mansfield’s article on “worthy speech” is that elites, in order to act under the civic, civil, and legal agreement offered to fellow citizens by the U.S. preamble dedicate themselves to maintaining both the actuality and the journal of progress so as to gradually approach perfection in civic integrity. This view has continuity over the past 2400 years. By extension, a better future seems possible.
            Agathon, in Plato’s “Symposium” said, in my interpretation, that appreciation’s greatest strength is that it neither perpetrates nor tolerates harm to or from any person or god. The elite person who appreciates his or her gifts uses them to develop civic integrity.
            General and fellow citizen George Washington, in his farewell to the Continental Army, June 8, 1781, said, “. . . essential to . . . the existence of the United States as an Independent Power . . . friendly Disposition, among the People of the United States, which will induce them to . . . sacrifice their individual advantages to the interest of the Community.”
            Gouverneur Morris perhaps wrote the U.S. preamble to reflect the civic, civil, and legal intentions that developed during the constitutional convention. James Madison was a member of Morris’s committee, but I doubt he liked that the preamble left the pursuit of a god or none to the individual fellow citizen. Before long, the U.S. preamble was falsely labeled “secular” whereas it is neutral to religion as well as to gender, to race, to national origins, and to economic class.
Abraham Lincoln, opposing the civil war in his first inaugural address said,

Why should there not be a patient confidence in the ultimate justice of the people? Is there any better or equal hope in the world? In our present differences, is either party without faith of being in the right? If the Almighty Ruler of Nations, with His eternal truth and justice, be on your side of the North, or on yours of the South, that truth and that justice will surely prevail by the judgment of this great tribunal of the American people.

I detect neither classism nor religious preference in Lincoln’s “tribunal of the American people.”
      Albert Einstein, in 1941, said, “[Not lying answers] the demands: ‘Human life shall be preserved’ and ‘Pain and sorrow shall be lessened as much as possible.’” Einstein's message is: Human behavior is informed by physics (the object of discovery) rather than metaphysics or reason.

      Speech that attempts to establish classism and elitism as civic justice may be freely extended. However, people who accept IPEA (individual power, individual energy, and individual authority) demand worthy speech---speech that at least strives to establish mutual, comprehensive safety and security, with each fellow citizen in full appreciation of his or her opportunity to help develop 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. 

Monday, November 19, 2018

A better future is achievable

An Achievable Better Future

            Thank you, fellow citizens, for the chance to introduce you to the leading edge of a specific civic task: establishing actual use of the United States preamble.
I write and speak to express a dream and to make it attractive and convincing so that the listener may want to clarify the premises, collaborate to discover the practices that are implied, help create a plan of action, and begin to reap the benefits of living an achievable better future. My approach is to describe the bases of the imagined future without apology or derivation, leaving that collaboration for the fellow citizens who, perhaps with us, may actually capture the dream and make it happen.
            In other words, this essay is not intended to prove the premises. So the reader is asked to accept them in order to grasp the dream. If the dream is favorable the hard work of improving the statements today may seem worthwhile and can be accomplished in time. My language is necessarily specific, so listen with an open ear and alacrity to accommodate new uses for old words. For example, “civic” herein is like “live and let live,” and I hope that may be evident as I talk. Sometimes, I seem repetitive, and I am comfortable with it.
There is an achievable better future! Let’s make it happen. 

Being human within humankind

            Each individual human life is a brief experience in the continuum of families that make up humankind. Family development often seems unattended or random but could drive the progress of humankind itself. So far, it seems humankind’s psychological development lags technological development. The consequence of humankind’s psychological lag can be ruinous for the individual who does not individually attend to his or her psychological development.
            Every human being has the individual power, the individual energy, and the individual authority (IPEA) to either develop integrity or not. (There won’t be any more acronyms, so its OK to learn this one at least for this essay: IPEA means individual power, energy, and authority.) If an individual chooses to develop integrity, fidelity follows. Integrity is a practice, and fidelity empowers civic human connections.[1] Integrity entails both understanding and morality in connections with fellow citizens.
If a person, unfortunately, chooses to develop crime, his or her IPEA does not weaken. He or she may become a crime-master. However, to have a civic culture, a people collaborate to constrain crime. In this context, “civic” means living people who during their cognitive lives collaborate for mutual, comprehensive safety and security, hereafter Security. The civic needs of today surpass the civic needs of the past, yet there is an abiding civic integrity.
Like a tsunami’s uncontrollable advance, a newborn human’s life unstoppably unfolds from a feral state unto young adulthood. The young adult either emerges with the understanding and intent to live a full human life or not. Fortunate is the person who develops integrity. Developing integrity is essential to human fullness. Most human beings could have been more than they become.
The human being is so psychologically powerful it takes a quarter century for his or her body to complete construction of the wisdom parts of the brain, and another few years of experience and observations for his or her personal preferences to emerge. Without integrity and fidelity, wisdom may never come. Caregivers may encourage and coach the individual, but the decision to develop integrity can only be made by the person.
It might seem nice if an individual could know who they’d like to be just before their body, mind, and person stop functioning. However, there would be no opportunity for self-discovery and development of personal preferences. The individual’s families may encourage him or her in youth to develop integrity without exception, but only the individual can make his or her cumulative choices leading to maturity or not.
Integrity is established by fidelity. If an individual elects infidelity, the mistake may[2] be undone if the person wishes to re-establish his or her journey to integrity. The delay and any harm caused are losses in personal time and property yet may be corrective. That is, error is often a person’s teacher. Fortunate is the person whose harmless error can be corrected---perhaps as lucky as the person who reaches high ground in a storm surge.
Often human error is nearly ruinous. It is important for the individual not to accept ruin; to never give up the quest for integrity.
In a civic culture, most adults would, by example, encourage and coach children to embrace IPEA and to use it to develop integrity. Never has such a culture existed, yet the U.S. may be at a moral abyss and on the brink of ascent to civic integrity. If so, we may help.

Developing IPEA

The human being is so physically and psychologically powerful that it takes about three decades to acquire the understanding and intent to live a complete human lifetime. Whereas a lion is mature in 3 years and an elephant in 25 years, a human body has not completed construction of the wisdom-building parts of the brain until a quarter century has passed. Human maturity occurs late in life, perhaps in the seventh decade if at all. Integrity is as essential to human psychological power as the thumb is to human physical power. Through integrity, the individual develops fidelity to the-objective-truth.
However, accepting bemusement by appetites, societies, civilizations, and governments, most people never adopt IPEA. Instead, they assume by tradition that another entity will oversee their development of maturity as time passes. Some attempt to assign this responsibility to their god. The habit is shared from generation to generation. Many people take advantage of this habit and promise to serve others in surrogate authority but in fact, use the bargain to unfavorably control the individual. By this process, past generations have neglected the U.S. preamble’s power for mutual civic discipline. Scholars erroneously claim the preamble is an agreement for self-governance rather than civic discipline.

The IPEA-family

Consequently, the physical family that attends to IPEA is essential to human development. Thus, a man and a woman who are mutually attracted may develop a bond for monogamy for life. Their bond has the support of four parent-in-laws with their families and friends. The couple may share their trust and commitment with progeny. Parents and children develop IPEA-lives that hold promise for the parents’ grandchildren. The grandchildren who procreate will each add another pair of grandparents bringing the immediate-past diversity to six family lines. Perhaps this physical commitment to human posterity provides ideal psychological development for the individual. With a majority of individuals practicing IPEA, the collective We the People of the United States may be empowered by IPEA.


            Integrity is a practice: recognize a personal concern, imposed fear, or wonder; discover whether the object of interest addresses actual reality (the-objective-truth), human construct, or a mirage; understand how actual reality invokes interest and how to benefit from the understanding; behave accordingly; share with fellow citizens why you behave so and LISTEN to their responses for opportunity to collaborate for mutual improvement; be alert for the need to change, for example, upon new discovery.
When the practice is inconclusive, the individual assents that the-objective-truth has not been discovered. In integrity, the person who does not know proclaims, “I do not know.” However, it seems not objectionable to express well-grounded opinion about the unknown. If action is required, it may be taken but not in conflict with the interconnected discoveries or the-objective-truth.

A civic culture

            In a civic culture, most people are at a specific progress in their journey toward integrity or none. They are aware that some fellow citizens use IPEA for infidelity and by example encourage reform. That is, the civic fellow citizens encourage and coach dissidents to reform but hope motivation comes from exemplary behavior. Yet both a civic people and dissidents remain fellow citizens.


            In a civic culture, most fellow citizens understand that civic behavior comes from personal consent to collaborate for mutual, comprehensive safety and security, hereafter Security.
History shows that living humans are on various moral and chronological paths; dissident fellow citizens may always be expected, so there is the need for statutory justice.
In order to collaborate to discover justice, there must be consent to develop law and law enforcement. Many fellow citizens are not aware of equal justice under law let alone its practice. Perhaps that is because political regimes develop dominant opinion rather than collaborate to discover and observe the-objective-truth, which I explain later.

            U.S. civic agreement

            In the United States, the established civic agreement on which the quest for statutory justice is organized is the preamble to the U.S. Constitution, hereafter the U.S. preamble. It is a civic, civil, and legal agreement. People queue to enter a concert on civic behavior. People observe traffic regulations on civil behavior. People serve on juries under legal behavior.
            The preamble offers an agreement for mutual self-discipline rather than governance. Neighbors do not want to govern but some like support in the work for self-discipline. The preamble seems the world’s greatest political sentence because it tacitly offers fellow citizens the opportunity for individual happiness with civic integrity rather than “the happiness” someone else would impose. Fellow citizens who adopt the U.S. preamble discipline themselves and manage their local, state, and national governments by voting for representatives who will act for civic integrity.


            In scholarly articles about “truth” there’s never a resolution of the debate between nature and reason; science and religion; earth and heaven; evolution and God; my truth and yours. However, there exists a response to every query, and whatever that response is in each case is the-objective-truth (with two hyphens to keep the phrase whole). The-object-truth exists and can only be discovered. For example, there may be an entity that controls the unfolding of the universe, but humankind has not yet discovered whether it’s a god, God, or physics, the object of scientific study.

            Physics rather than science

            We now know that Albert Einstein’s general theory of relativity is a law rather than mere theory.[3] Mass and energy are interchangeable at the speed of light. Expressing this law as physics, the object of all scientific study, it seems that everything emerges from physics. Clearly, science is not an object but is a process for discovery.
            We understand the forces that control the planets and their orbits by the discovery of physics’ laws. Likewise, we understand the workings of living beings through physics and its progeny, biology. Similarly, we understand psychology through the relation of physics, biology, and mathematics to behavior. Spiritualism seems the study of possibilities that have not yet been negated by discovery. Fiction lives on despite discovery. Science fiction and romance expand the bounds of imagination. However, physics does not respond to fiction, reason or other human constructs.
            Conforming to physics (the object of study rather than the study process) provides a basis for civic collaboration to discover statutory justice.

            Integrity rather than ethics

            Einstein informed humankind in 1941[4] that the laws of science and the laws of ethics come from the same source. He spoke at a conference on science and religion and traditionally spoke for the audience. In other words, the words he used may have been popular rather than accurate. His only example was that “’Thou shalt not lie’ has been traced back to the demands: ‘Human life shall be preserved’ and ‘Pain and sorrow shall be lessened as much as possible’,” rather than to conform to Jewish doctrine.[5] Just as “physics,” the object of study, seems more expressive than science, the study; “integrity,” the practice, seems more expressive than “ethics,” a discovery process. Thus, I paraphrase Einstein’s message: Physics and integrity come from the same source: actual reality or the-objective-truth.

Being human

            So far, individuals live in a conflicted world wherein most infants may or may not, over the unforgiving march of time, discover their opportunity to develop individual humanity rather than join the competition for dominant opinion or an organization for someone else’s political cause. The concepts presented herein, especially IPEA, are not presented to children much less developed among adults. Thus, human psychology lags technology.
            Instead of using IPEA to develop integrity, self-discipline and fidelity people compete and war for dominance. Rather than accept human equality and dignity, most people vie for political power, either individually or by fruitlessly submitting IPEA to managers of a collective such as a church.


            Among human beings, the basis of equality is mutual consent to a standard. Scholars lamely debate equal justice under law.[6] But humans are too physically and psychologically powerful to accept arbitrary laws. In other words, people who accept IPEA manage arbitrary laws to personal advantage over fellow citizens. Therefore, the development of statutory justice must be based on physics or a better expression of the-objective-truth on of you may discover. Only with a neutral standard can most fellow citizens apply IPEA to develop integrity. Scholars use the term “nature” to favor “reason,” repressing the-objective-truth.


            Human dignity is earned in privacy according to whether or not the individual uses IPEA to develop integrity. The Bernard Madoff’s of the world use IPEA to develop and nourish banal appetites until the chief value their person serves is to exemplify the remorse of gratitude for food, lodging, and health-care under the dole of prison. Some criminals avoid prison yet suffer the remorse of self-doubt.


            Education begins at birth and ends at death. The education system that most cultures have evolved is upside down. By that, I mean the educators assume they know what the student needs to know rather than what the student needs to learn: the discipline of life-long learning.[7] That is, educators think they must transfer knowledge when in fact they ought to encourage and coach students in acquiring individual discipline in learning.
            After inculcating the basics of reading, comprehension, writing, and physics (E=mC-squared from which everything emerges), the education system ought to allow the individual to develop the awareness, understanding, and intent he or she needs to live a full human life. A civic culture empowers civic people who become free people. That is, people who are free from both external and internal constraints.
            The stages in learning in the education system by which humans may flourish include awareness, personal autonomy, civic connection, comprehensive understanding, intent to collaborate for statutory justice, professionally serving fellow humans, civic integrity, fidelity, and self-discovery. Human error must not be allowed to terminate the quest, yet few humans become all they could be.
            A civic culture does not exist because no nation or people has ever developed its children with an education system designed to encourage and coach each person to be all they can be.

Civic discipline under the U.S. preamble

            With at least 2/3 of fellow citizens practicing civic discipline under the U.S. preamble, a civic culture may gradually develop. With shared purpose and goals, public discourse may gradually change from animosity over dominant opinion to appreciation for collaboration for civic integrity. Collaboration by most fellow citizens may lead to local, state, and national reliability: officials collaborating for the U.S. preamble’s goals and the-objective-truth rather than for partisan power. Individual happiness may accrue on some revolutionary changes.

            Establishing U.S. practices rather than English tradition

            One reason the U.S. preamble, the world’s greatest political sentence, has been suppressed for 230 years is that for 229 years the dominant political regimes have sought to re-establish British common law, Blackstone, with factional American Protestantism. We the People of the United States may examine everything Congress has done and if legislation restored British tradition at the expense of the purpose and goals of the U.S. preamble, correct the legislation. Establish U.S. independence from British colonialism at last.
            Eventually, there may be constitutional amendments. For example, rather than defending religion, an institution that serves privacy, the First Amendment might defend civic integrity, both an individual opportunity and a collective duty. In civic integrity, fellow citizens neither compromise each other’s gods nor collaborate on other privacies.
The militia authorization of Amendment 2 might be replaced with self-defense and hunting, constraining public protest to un-armed and undisruptive expression. Such change becomes possible because elected officials consider themselves fellow citizens collaborating for the U.S. preamble’s purpose and goals. In a civic culture, both individuals and societies flourish provided that they conform to statutory justice.
            This vision of a possible future may seem impossible at this moment, but that seems so only because public use of the U.S. preamble with the-objective-truth to establish statutory justice has never been tried in the history of the world.

Summary: the achievable principles and their consequences

            We suggest that IPEA, use of the civic self-discipline that is offered in the U.S. preamble, collaboration for civic integrity or the-objective-truth, and attention to posterity rather than adult satisfactions offers an achievable, better future. Statutory justice may be discovered from physics rather than arbitrary opinion or reasoning. These mere conceptions need individual collaboration and improvement for success to accrue. The consequence may be the establishment of We the People of the United States rather than the lame “we, the people,” at last. The people of the world might celebrate.

Next steps for interested citizens

            If what you have heard seems motivating, you may want to collaborate to use and further develop the principles. There are, in our blog, titled “A Civic People,” over 110 essays from which these principles emerged in library meetings with over seventy participants and in other fora.
Our next planned library meeting is for the week of June 21, 2019, to celebrate Individual Independence Day in commemoration of the establishment of the U.S. on June 21, 1788, when the ninth required state ratified the U.S. preamble and the constitution that followed. You are invited to prepare and lead that meeting to express your views on A Civic People.
            While we are “A Civic People of the United States,” an education corporation registered with the Secretary of State, we have no intention to make this a non-profit, revenue-generating organization. We think commercialization is the reason past U.S. preamble promotions[8] failed. On the other hand, we write in several forums to promote the principles. Work that survives the generations is done by willing fellow citizens, and we need volunteers.


            After 229 years’ operation, the United States has lost a gleaming promise that never developed. However, through collaboration to develop civic-discipline among most fellow citizens, a better future may immediately begin. With your collaboration, actual improvement may appear next week and become widespread in Baton Rouge within the coming year. With the consequential improvements in political management by fellow citizens, elected officials will begin to collaborate for civic integrity during the next couple of election cycles. The administrative improvements may spread to the institutional and appointed offices within a decade or two. Our posterity may be saved from the massive debt that burdens them. We the People of the United States may emerge at last.

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. 

[1] I Googled the phrase “integral human condition,” and Google directed me to four interesting articles: https://catholicecology.net/blog/pope-francis-what-integral-human-development, https://www.marxists.org/archive/fromm/works/1961/man/ch04.htm, https://keough.nd.edu/integral-human-development/, and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_development_(economics).
[2] I admit to “may” when I don’t know enough to write “must.”
[3] Gravitational waves discovered, online at https://www.ligo.caltech.edu/news/ligo20160211.
[4] See Einstein’s speech, embedded online at https://samharris.org/my-friend-einstein/.
[5] Online at en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thou_shalt_not_bear_false_witness_against_thy_neighbour#Jewish_doctrine.
[6] Online at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_justice_under_law.
[7] Children face a time parents cannot imagine: online at http://www.katsandogz.com/onchildren.html.
[8] Online at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_Day_(United_States)#I_am_an_American_Day