RE: "I AM DONNA - and I'm the hammer"
Private Property Exists:
Do you believe in private property? You wrote, "Of course, private property does exist, it's convention. I never said that it doesn't, either." I agree with that. Are you saying that people should not become too addicted to possessions? I would agree that excessive attachment is dangerous.
Dangers of Money
The love of money is dangerous. If you believe in the desire of generosity, of sharing, of not becoming too possessive, too dependent on things that we may or may not own, I agree with that. I generally write from the perspective of federal and global government. In other words, I try to promote making government smaller.
Authoritarian Cancer Tumors
Over time, government can grow and begin to take things from people. Some people don't believe in ownership. Some people do. But both people groups could come together to fight against government who try to take land from people. Now, people have the freedom to believe what they want. I endorse and encourage freewill. I try to look for things, for ideas, that can bring people together. I encourage people to buy guns to protect themselves from tyrannies.
Personal
I generally talk about legality. But you are mostly talking about what individuals should do as people, as individuals, on a personal level, morally, socially, locally, spiritually, physically, practically, psychologically, in regards to a mindset that can be helpful, and I agree with you in regards to what people should do.
Classical Liberalism
But I was mostly talking about allowing people to do what they want, in what they can do, legally speaking, both good and bad, in order to allow people the ability to make choices without being forced to do certain things. You believe in principles that I agree with.
Violating Humanity
But I do not want to try too hard, too excessively, too often, everywhere, or too much, to force people to do what is right. I do not want to ban too many things. I do not want to make too many things illegal. I prefer the free market to balance things out through decentralization over centralization. But you are right that people should share and not become too attached.
You're Right
People should learn how to be content. People should consider joy over circumstances, hope over dope, love through action, infinite altitude, eternal principles, the golden rule, proverbs, wisdom, charity, compassion, and a lot of original oatmeal.
Yes. I would change the formulation a little, though, and say: I myself would like to learn to become less dependent on possessions. I am not about to dictate the pace and form of other peoples development. As you said down below. I see that you see the problematic effects it can have when dictation becomes strong.
Correct, I do. I have a reason for that.
To make a provocative statement: First of all, I don't care about the political law. Only in the second step does it become important again. I am a social worker.
I sometimes advise married couples who are separating and express conflicts with the handling and custody of the children. Before they even think about their own intentions and wishes, they ask about the legal regulations. My reaction to this is: "We can look at these regulations. But I want to ask you first: What exactly do you as a mother and father want for your child? What do you need for yourself? What do you think would be possible and sensible to clarify and negotiate for the future?"
If I were to go into the official law immediately, then the clients would have been deprived of an important experience: That they are able to create a reasonable basis for this particular situation based on their personal and individual needs. This may indeed differ from the law in that, for example, the amount of child support payments may differ from the amounts indicated by the law. A law is there for guidance only, it is intended to provide support for fully contentious cases. It is not intended to interfere in private matters, but to provide justice for those who are in the weakest position among those in dispute. In this case: the children.
My experience with this is good. I try to provide the adults in dispute with a basis for negotiation and a space in which they do not develop or further nurture enmities through all-party moderation. This often requires very direct, albeit friendly words. If I send out even the slightest hint of one-partiality, I have lost the clients. The consequences can be severe. Instead of calming down a conflict, I would have to answer for having fueled it even further. It's dangerous to be, for example, on the side of the woman and turn against the man. It's not up to me to judge them but to support them both, no matter how I see it fit. They must come to terms.
I transfer this method to the micro and macro level of human interaction.
A gun will not protect me from tyranny, since tyrants always have the more powerful weapons and violence than I have. When tyranny has grown to the point where it has become dictatorial, violent, depriving freedom, a weapon in my hand will not change that. I can only ensure peaceful coexistence in peacetime by using my means and abilities to resolve conflicts privately and professionally.
If you imagine that a shattered relationship turns a man and a woman into enemies, what do you think both will do if they fail to come to an amicable resolution? They will divert their frustration and anger to others, even to their own children and those they consider guilty of their plight. ... You can also use a weapon metaphorically by taking sides with either the man or woman, encouraging him or her to take revenge, to get back at the other, to "bleed" him or her in the separation. Whenever people interfere in other people's relationships in such a way that they transmit their own bad experiences and speak of disappointment, deceit or cheating, they do more harm than good.
I think a good way out is to take both sides and never let yourself be used as an opponent by one or the other party. This testifies to human strength, understanding and love for being human.
Sorry, I got carried away a little.
I am relieved to find in you some interfaces and understanding. We can have a good argument and separate with the confirmation that what we seek for, is consensus.