Thank you for responding. This is a thoughtful, message and I think you're absolutely right based partly on my own experience. Keeping what we've amassed, maintaining the status quo, I think is what you're saying. That fear of losing, a kind of insecurity, is what connects those who have a lot and those who have less. Having a lot can i…
Thank you for responding. This is a thoughtful, message and I think you're absolutely right based partly on my own experience. Keeping what we've amassed, maintaining the status quo, I think is what you're saying. That fear of losing, a kind of insecurity, is what connects those who have a lot and those who have less. Having a lot can imprison you similarly to how having not much can imprison you. But not everyone in these circumstances is imprisoned—so the imprisonment is mental, psychological, a lack of faith, of trust, of one's own resilience, of one's own ability. Always having little but not the wherewithall to be content or change things, or always having a lot but not the wherewithall to see beyond your own borders. Seeing the bigger picture takes courage and selflessness, it takes heart, and love for this world, this planet, and every creature that lives. And it's necessary, because every creature is necessary. At some point, all the money in the world, and all the anger and hatred, will get you living barricaded behind walls with no one having your back. That's the big picture the GOP doesn't want to acknowledge even as it tries to herd us down that path. Live for today is a problematic slogan.
My daughter had a college roommate who lived in a war zone. The family slept fully dressed in case the needed to run. I suppose there are those who like to live on the edge of danger, but it seems like an experientially impoverished way to be forced to live; and that an environment that supports trust with abiding vigilance is far richer.
DR spoke of freedom from as well as freedom to. That surely requires watching out for one another. Democracy and rule of law is a tragic travesty without preponderant good faith. Two or more national parties at total war is a failed state.
Freedom requires a diverse array of responsible choices, and that can't scale without controversy and tension, with reasonable peaceable means of resolving or tolerating discord. Such as, who gets to drive across an intersection first? We need to agree on such things. A free society provides a foundational basis for trust.
“To believe all men honest is folly. To believe none is something worse.” - John Adams
Thank you for responding. This is a thoughtful, message and I think you're absolutely right based partly on my own experience. Keeping what we've amassed, maintaining the status quo, I think is what you're saying. That fear of losing, a kind of insecurity, is what connects those who have a lot and those who have less. Having a lot can imprison you similarly to how having not much can imprison you. But not everyone in these circumstances is imprisoned—so the imprisonment is mental, psychological, a lack of faith, of trust, of one's own resilience, of one's own ability. Always having little but not the wherewithall to be content or change things, or always having a lot but not the wherewithall to see beyond your own borders. Seeing the bigger picture takes courage and selflessness, it takes heart, and love for this world, this planet, and every creature that lives. And it's necessary, because every creature is necessary. At some point, all the money in the world, and all the anger and hatred, will get you living barricaded behind walls with no one having your back. That's the big picture the GOP doesn't want to acknowledge even as it tries to herd us down that path. Live for today is a problematic slogan.
My daughter had a college roommate who lived in a war zone. The family slept fully dressed in case the needed to run. I suppose there are those who like to live on the edge of danger, but it seems like an experientially impoverished way to be forced to live; and that an environment that supports trust with abiding vigilance is far richer.
DR spoke of freedom from as well as freedom to. That surely requires watching out for one another. Democracy and rule of law is a tragic travesty without preponderant good faith. Two or more national parties at total war is a failed state.
Freedom requires a diverse array of responsible choices, and that can't scale without controversy and tension, with reasonable peaceable means of resolving or tolerating discord. Such as, who gets to drive across an intersection first? We need to agree on such things. A free society provides a foundational basis for trust.
“To believe all men honest is folly. To believe none is something worse.” - John Adams