Please do not take what I have written seriously; these writings describe parts of me, or more specifically strands of thoughts within my mind that have been clamoring for attention.  Thoughts are highly jealous of other thoughts, you see—just ask any person who suffers from Schizophrenia.  Not that I suffer from such a state of uncoordinated thoughts.  But thoughts have a life of their own.  All individuals have multiple thoughts, and yet some thoughts, for whatever mysterious reasons, feel somewhat dearer than others, than other thoughts that one deems more respectable and sound and reasonable and just. 

 

I usually get enraged, at least not always outwardly, when some person or thought, imagined or real, forces me, with the aid of its Reason, Truth, and Justice, to agree to condemning another human being and in such a manner that is not tasteful to the modern man, who I typically personify.  While I am no Ghandi, I prefer my confrontations to be clean and open to the public.  I cannot picture myself coldly hunting down a person who wronged me, even if he did deserve it.  Nor do I believe in taking the law into my own hands, even if it is to oppose tyranny and to hunt down bad guys.  I prefer to move with the consensus of my peers and within the contexts of due process.  That to have to fight for rights is important I agree, but I prefer minimizing such draconian solutions.   I hate militant solutions to solve every other problem.  And I dislike it when people exaggerate their personal problems of being wronged by others.  I prefer to go to courts of law and accept the judgments, just like a cricket player accepts the umpire, even if the umpire makes bad shots.  I do not think of killing the umpire.  At least not in all circumstances, but the most problematic ones and only as a last resort, after I have banged on the doors of parliament and congress.

 

I do not like people who are revolutionary in nature.  I do not like people when they speak of justice and clamor about every problem as depraved indifference and negligence.  I do not like faulting parents because they trust someone to take care of their children who in turn may kill the children because he or she happens to suffer suddenly, unknown to the parents, psychotic episodes.  Negligence is defined as failing to do what a reasonable person would do, but it does allow people to accept customary notions of risk; though such notions may be laced or tightened and reformed with experience.  That laws should be enacted to govenr the hiring of only certified babysitters I agree.  I agree on policy changes, but I would hate to jail the parents to make a point, at least in all situtations involving customary and widely accepted notions of risk.

 

I believe a nation should let its citizens take risks and not to condemn people if then things go wrong, at least not on every action.  If you drive in a car, you are taking a risk of having an accident, and yet I do not charge you for recklessly endangering the life of your family members because you choose to drive.  You consider that an acceptable risk. 

 

When you go out at night for icecream knowing that robbers plague your city at night, I do not charge you with depraved indifference with regards to your taking care of your family.  Why then should I charge a mother and a father who upon recommendation of their friends hire a trusted babysitter in order to go out and have dinner with indifference and negligence, if the babysitter ends up doing something to their children?  I do not like compounding misery.  If you are the kind of person who wants to minimize risk, don’t go out of the house.  Don’t drive.  Just stay safe. 

 

I do not like over regualtion and the state interfering in the decision making process of every individual on every decision on the grounds of prudence and safety.  This is where conservatives and people who I call truly liberal differ.  Any one who loves controling the lives and decisions made by others is a conservative and any person who tolerates people making their own decisions, even stupid ones, is a liberal.  And you will find both kinds in society, though the extent and scope of their pursuits and what they find reasonable will differ on the amounts of risks they wish to eliminate or take on which in turn is determined by their needs and their way of life, which differs from country to country due to historical reasons.