What do you get when you mix the U.S. Constitution, Aristotle, Lysander Spooner, Victor E. Frankl, and the World together?

You get the philosophy of EVEN HAND. How else are we to confirm a mature understanding of such integral social concepts as "We The People" and "Of the People, By the People, For the People!"


Consider this exert from Dr. Victor E. Frankl's book, "Such widespread phenomena as depression, aggression, and addiction are not understandable unless we recognize the existential vacuum underlying them. This is also true of the crisis of pensioners and aging people." To account for the evils exponentially multiplied by society such as depression, aggression, and addiction wouldn't a commitment of honor and fairness of each persons duties, shares, and responsibilities to the governing of their nation/world fill that existential vacuum at its foundation? If the governing system first takes its citizens for granted, then, how easy is it to become disillusioned to one's meaning in life? That isn't honorable or fair; to them or ourselves."

Completing a contract for a power structure for authority is an act of social integration. Let us keep this in mind as we ask the question, "who's contract?"

A power structure for authority enhances and allows civilization to protect itself, taming society to the benefit. of social order. Such power structures should consider freedom and equality, have a coherent system for making and interpreting law, and then should ask every adult person by contract for their allegiance.

Civilization, like all words can be loosely can be translated or obfuscated so that people really have no idea what it is beyond a general term that has no significance or purpose.

Respect for each independent person is conducive to civilization. We can expect that if we respect each individual they'll in turn be polite, courteous, and mannerful which is once again conducive to civilization. We don't wish to be the source of our own misery. We should build that respect as we desire civilization.

Hence, the reason for signing a power structure for authority as a contract is for the psychological purpose of asking people to exercise their liberty for the Human Race and commit themselves to civilization over anarchy.

EVEN HAND doesn’t purport that every action taken by people be bound by contract. Simply, that by giving people a primary choice we might raise their awareness of the circumstances we are attempting to offset: war, famines, pestilence, economic depression, anarchy, plagues, addiction.

Has anyone ever asked you to be an American? Has anyone asked you personally to be a citizen of your country? To who do you claim allegiance? To who do you trust with your life? These are questions that ultimately lead back to you, not some leader.

It’s the paradox of liberty that there can be no fair authority that gives consent to play the game besides yourself. If the people in power don't ask, you're morally obliged to get them to ask or you use your own authority, self-control, to compel yourselt to be acquiescent. It you deny the existence of governments right to rule, then, you are deluding yourself of the fact that will, might, and power effects your life.

Which is the greater transgression, taking someone’s allegiance for granted or asklng them to sign a contract for government sparing no one? We know government is a necessary  but evil institution which organizes authority in our lives. Then, is authority a transgression against individual freedom?  

That'd make participation by a citizen a criminal act. The whole foundation ot this discourse is about a life that is participation orientated.

"A society that has no reference points beyond itself increasingly becomes a merely contractual agreement," says sociologist Peter Berger. "The problem with that", he continues, "Is that Human Beings will not die for a Social contract. And 'unless people are prepared, if necessary, to die for it,’ a society cannot long survive."

It is that reference point beyond society that is most peoples wonder. While I don’t know of any seriously regarded modern government that promises to unquenchably satisfy that inherent wonder, I do believe that the idea of a social contract has merit. In fact, you may aptly conclude that the greater part of this discourse is in refuatation to Mr. Berger's observation.

If the people of our Armed Forces will live, fight, and die to maintain the U.S. Constitution how much more so if they are each given the opportunity to sign it themselves.

Critics might say that Even Hand amounts to a forced witnessing against oneself thereby breaking the U.S. Constitution’s 5th Amendment and putting a whole new definition to a persons Miranda Rights. The destiny of the Human Race and its authority isn't invisible. It's real. Neither should a persons allegiance be invisible. It's real.

People commit to the greater goal of civilization through Even Hand jus by participating. They aren't forced to agree to the prevailing power structure for authority. Without that agreement to be civil first, government second, what is life?

Several times I have mentioned a Democratic Triad and inferred that the U.S. Constitution outlines one. What exactly is the power structure for authority that a Democratic Triad provides? This discourse is not on the actual structure of a Democratic Triad, this video is to show you a different perspective of the U.S.Constitution. It is very important that you learn what the Constitution outlines inasmuch you must know what you are saying Yes and No to.

One of the problems with a Democratic Triad as it is practiced in the U.S. today's that voters have no real recourse except to make a better educated vote. Through a contract politicians who're themselves citizens that signed yes to the contract for government, outlining a specific power structure for authority; and base their political agenda on the support of other people who signed yes must be O’so sure of keeping their promises.

To convince other citizens to sign yes and keep them together long enough to form a cohesive party that'd affect the policies of our Democratic Triad those yes-politicians would have to be immaculate in their ways. I believe that is a proper expectation of our leaders.

Patriotism is not an affrontery. While fanaticism is a blight on rationality. Just because a person signs yes to a power structure for authority doesn’t imply they are a fanatic.