Monday, April 17, 2017

Voluntary public-integrity 5/8/17

Voluntary public-integrity expresses a way of living wherein most people mutually discover public-morality[1],[2] using the-objective-truth rather than submit to dominate-opinion or political-power. Thus, most people discover public-integrity not by force or coercion but by personal will. For example, spouses mutually grow fidelity according to the-objective-truth. The-objective-truth expresses what-is---the object of discovery, rather than what-may-be---the subject of imagination. For example, humankind explores the universe yet does not talk to extraterrestrials.
Also, most people iteratively-collaborate to discover the-objective-truth. Thus, they may practice broadly-defined-public-safety-and-security, hereafter, public-security, for themselves, for their children, and for the beyond: posterity. It seems almost everyone seeks such a way of living. Perhaps voluntary public-integrity expresses the political morality humankind has been discovering but at a cruel pace. Perhaps political evolution is occurring geographically, ethnically, religiously, culturally: comprehensively. Perhaps most people pursue a mixture of what-is and what-may-be, according to personal preferences. Perhaps most people, knowingly or not, seek to perfect their unique person low as they may be, independent of their community. In other words, in psychological maturity, the person rises above civilizations, social moralities, civil convention, and religious doctrine.
Perhaps public-security is essential to freedom-from oppression so that a person may earn the liberty-to pursue private happiness. The purpose of this essay is to propose private-happiness-with-public-morality through voluntary public-integrity. Peaceful pursuit of private dreams and hopes such as arts, sports, or religion seem not a matter for public deliberation, yet private pursuits must either conform to public-morality or risk constraint. Constraint may be needed when a private practice causes actual harm. For example, a religious event that routinely causes death may be constrained. The proposal for public-justice so as to empower private happiness can start the process, but the practice requires maintenance and continual improvement by the people who choose to collaborate and/or cooperate---a civic people.
Public-morality is established in voluntary iterative-collaboration by most persons so that each life may flourish in place and time rather than for the sake of either the community, tradition, or an ideology. In public-morality persons collaborate for public-security for each person rather than to cooperate for the city or state. Rather than persons civilizing for the greater good, the greater good provides public-security so that each person may earn the liberty-to pursue private preferences, often referred to as happiness. Liberty requires responsibility for public-security. Part of earning liberty is maintaining public-security.
In iterative-collaboration, living persons voluntarily, candidly discuss public issues until practice that provides mutual, individual justice is discovered. In other words, neither party subjugates or cooperates for arbitrary advantage. By pursuing the-objective-truth the way of living avoids errors of obsolete opinion or tradition. The consequence is freedom from arbitrary constraint so that each person has the liberty to privately pursue personal preferences during their lifetime. Instead of serving government, willing people collaborate to make certain government does not make the liberty to earn private happiness impossible.
Private-liberty-with-public-morality empowers an-objective-culture. Therein, humankind in most civilizations deliberately evolves so that most persons flourish in their time---their perhaps eighty years of life---rather than suffer a cause they did not choose or rather than submit to imposition. An-objective-culture records discovery of the-objective-truth so that future generations may efficiently correct errors upon discovery or new understanding. The purpose of records is not to impose ideologies or rules but rather to empower infants to become adults at the leading edge of progress. For example, people once thought the earth is flat but it is like a globe,[3] and no infant should have to rediscover the facts. Also, people don’t lie so that they can communicate, and no infant need struggle to learn that principle. But not every person or civilization participates in voluntary public-integrity: some are dissidents for reasons they may or may not understand. For example, a liar does not understand that he or she did not communicate. A common source of dissidence is discovery that care-takers neglected, betrayed, or abused one’s self. If so, either personal autonomy[4] or coaching may overcome the wounds and restore the person’s path to self-discovery.
Among first principles of voluntary public-integrity is personal public fidelity. Both respectively and collectively, the person grows fidelity to these entities: to the-objective-truth, to self, to immediate family, to extended family, to the people, to the nation, to the world, and to the universe. Inevitable human errors may be confronted, corrected and not repeated. Achieving public-fidelity seems possible for each unique human---each person. An-objective-culture invites each person to undertake the private journey from what-is to what-may-be; from feral infant to psychologically mature adult; from abject ignorance to unique perfection. The consequence of the journey may be unique personal perfection within a lifetime. The journey cannot be entered if the person is attempting to conform to someone else’s quest. Dissidents may prevent perfecting a nation, yet a nation may facilitate most person’s opportunities to perfect themselves during their lifetime. That is, comprehending these principles, a person may apply them even in a nation that has not  discovered voluntary public-integrity.
An-objective-culture is established by willing persons, but some people prefer personal fidelity rather than public-fidelity. For example, some persons commit to exceptional wealth or power or expertise and therefore compromise voluntary public-integrity. Some people choose crime or evil or live to satisfy banal appetites. Some people are gullible to a social cause and have not the humility to protect themselves from false influence. We refer to the willing persons as “a civic people.”
“Civic” relates to a willing citizen of humankind more than city, country, or other habitation. In public connections or transactions no matter where the parties are situated, civic persons collaborate for individual public-fidelity we dub civic-justice. Their collaboration does not yield to past opinion, even though expected fidelities may reference dead relatives or past ideologies. Their way of living rises above civilizations, laws, opinion, pure-reason, regulation, imagination, etc., and only conforms to the-objective-truth. I neither know nor can discover alone. Humankind is in the continuing process of discovering the-objective-truth and each person who enjoys freedom from oppression may benefit from the leading edge throughout their lifetime rather than being bound to past opinion or tradition. Civic-justice continually improves statutory law as the people discover injustice yet public-integrity does not expect to eliminate either criminal law-enforcement or civil law-enforcement, because there are always dissidents. A civic people does not expect utopia. Therefore, an-objective-culture seems achievable: voluntary public-integrity just never has been attempted.
In summary so far, people establish an-objective-culture by voluntarily, iteratively-collaborating to discover the-objective-truth of which most is undiscovered and some is both understood and used, like discovering how the earth fits in its solar system. The-objective-truth exists and humankind works to discover both its elements and its interconnecting theories. Humankind continually explores universal theories.[5] While theories based on evidence aid discovery, the-objective-truth does not respond to human constructs hopes, dreams and ambitions. In other words, study may start with an evidence-based idea, but the-objective-truth does not conform to the idea. Human action modifies future events, but the events unfold according to the-objective-truth. Human achievement is built on studies to discover the-objective-truth. Human enterprise that rebukes the-objective-truth begs woe. For example, people who manipulate reason so as to justify slavery beg woe.
In iterative-collaboration, a public-integrity-volunteer perceives injustice and develops a plan for reform. He or she presents the concern and proposed remedy to a willing listener who agrees to discover the-objective-truth. The listener clarifies the words and phrases the speaker used to describe both the concern and the proposed solution. If listener agrees, they discuss the need for action, and perhaps a plan for implementing change. If listener’s experiences and observations differ from those of the speaker, he or she offers a related alternative statement & solution. Both parties seek justice according to public-fidelity. They may discover they do not know the-objective-truth yet find mutual public-fidelity within the theory of the-objective-truth. Each is guided by the-indisputable-facts-of-reality rather than personal-opinion or dominant-civil-opinion.
In contrast to civic-morality, civil opinion may have two aspects:  social and legal. Traditional social morality, mores, is based on temporal civilization rather than the-objective-truth. Cultural evolution has not overcome the quest for either dominant-civil-opinion or raw power. Many civilizations have not yet admitted that things go better with conformity to the-objective-truth rather than dominant-opinion. Whereas humankind cannot rebuke the-objective-truth without inviting woe, most civilizations are based on dominant-opinion, often that people behave only under force or coercion. For example, tradition holds that the USA is intended to protect life, liberty and property (pursuit of happiness). While “life” seems explicit, both “liberty” and “property” are controversial.
Life, liberty and property are actually English principles, revered by formerly loyal British colonists, some of whom turned statesmen in 1774. American statesmen concluded that England was intentionally enslaving the loyal subjects who were living in the colonies. Patriot-colonists changed their style to statesmen, rebuked English principles and declared independence in 1776. The consequence of revolutionary thought in America from 1720 through 1774 led to war for independence. The French led in strategy and military power in the victory battle at Yorktown, VA in 1781. The 1783 treaty with England names thirteen independent states rather than a nation. Four years later, statesmen drafted a constitution for the USA that specified explicit breaks from English common law: English Protestantism and Blackstone. The constitution stated the aims and purpose in a preamble that offers voluntary public-integrity.
The preamble proposes a civic agreement by the people in their states. The articles that follow address the slave population but, regardless of reasons, erroneously do not provide for emancipation. Social pressures to maintain the existing states’ civilizations prevented adoption of the draft constitution. Ratification in 1788 required that the First Congress negotiate an English-customary bill of rights. The Congress reinstated factional-Christian Protestantism and restored common law. The civic preamble was labeled “secular,” whereas it is neutral to religion.
Temporal mores overthrew the opportunity for statutory civil law that offers voluntary public-integrity. Extant US civilization regressed a civil republic that proposes voluntary public-integrity. As a consequence, many Americans now talk of democracy (which can only lead to chaos) rather than republicanism: representative rule according to statutory law that continually seeks civic justice. Some descendants of slaves talk of separation within the nation---a divided nation. As stated in the preamble, civic justice may be provided by willing people. The necessary people live in 2017, but their opportunity, like all the ones before is passing them by: every faction and perhaps every person is missing freedom-from and liberty-to for the sake of an ideology, personal or associative, they hold but do not understand.
Like republicanism, voluntary public-integrity values civic virtue, political participation, containing corruption, a republican constitution, individual-independence, and the rule of statutory law. Liberalism yields to civic freedom: both freedom from domination and “independence from arbitrary power.” With freedom from dominant-opinion about the-objective-truth, individuals may earn the liberty to pursue personal preferences and perhaps perfection of their person. Voluntary public-integrity is not to be confused with civic republicanism, civic humanism, communitarianism, liberalism or libertarianism. Closest to voluntary public-integrity may be civic republicanism, which we will discuss in a future post.

[1] In this book, I use dashed-phrases to help the reader keep a thought together and think it on each use.
[2] Revised from “civic-morality” after dialogue with GM King, “Federal help still key for saving gulf,” The Advocate online comments, April 21, 2017, online at
[3] Dimensions beyond length, width, depth and time address other universes and do not alter current perception of the earth like a globe that formed as a gravity-gathered cloud of gases and dust. See .
[4] Personal autonomy is not spontaneous. It is acquired from experiences and observations with a view toward understanding and practicing civic-justice. Perhaps it is the object of Ralph Waldo Emerson’s essay, “Self-reliance,” 1841. See . However, I do not think it is necessary to go beyond body, mind, and person in considering human fidelity: Speculation about the soul does not address civic morality.
[5] For example, a theory of ten dimensions extrapolates to universes with properties unlike our gravity and such. See .

Copyright©2017 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 5/8/17