Yes, I also think it's a good plan to be reasonably open and accepting of others, believing in general "goodness", because the great majority of people have had, or are currently experiencing some abuse, life struggle, or displacement from society (in general) in one way or another. We all bring our coping mechanisms, idiosyncrasies, warts & all to the "table". Also, all the positive attributes that perchance haven't had much room for expression in company with others or real life. Creating an atmosphere of acceptance in our environment for others might even rise to some kind of "purpose in life". I don't know for sure, but I know it IS important.
It is proven, so many examples, that people DO tell you who they are. Usually show you, while saying the exact opposite. There is some kind of denial reflex that happens to prevent people, especially women, from seeing the reality (and seeing through various excuses) and setting boundaries, enforcing them... without grieving overmuch for lost dreams/hopes.
Institutionally, there isn't any denying that Lighter is correct. There is an automatic bias built into the system that favors those with money to purchase golden-tongued lawyers and the standard belief in the idea that the wealthy & powerful - are also morally superior. Can do no wrong. Over the past couple of decades there has been SOME examples of an over-correction to that bias (ie, not justified by evidence beyond a reasonable doubt) but NOT enough to find a happy medium and establish a new baseline. I think society is still working on that. And because we ARE society and ARE people, we ain't always going to get it "right". That's another reflex to try to adjust - the belief that there is always some active force managing the affairs of humans and institutions. They're just men & women and also fallable.
We can probably ALL see ways that things could be better. But I learned a long time ago, listening to the old men talking over coffee & pastries, that we aren't in charge and no one is asking our opinion, either. Nobody cares what I feel about things, for that matter. And since I'm just one person among many in the world... I don't have any druthers or resentment about it not mattering. I can focus on my own garden, the people I'm directly in contact and involved with, and do the best I can. Perhaps - that's a path toward improving society and our institutions, but I don't really know. It's the one I chose and I like it - for ME. Others can choose differently and I don't feel any threat, resentment or invalidation because they choose differently. I certainly don't look down on them. But if someone presented me with Force Majeure and intended to build townhouses in my garden - I would throw everything at my disposal into stopping them. That is the boundary between institutions/gov't and myself, that I enforce. This seems to me, to be a morally correct position - because I am not scheming to take anything from anyone else (do no harm); I am simply protecting my SELF and what I've worked to achieve and build.
And once I'm gone - if Holly chooses differently - it's OK. The only available legal option I've got to preserve this after my death, would be a conservation covenant. Somehow I think nature can handle that on her own.
