Why should you be “forced” to help someone else?

Post image for Why should you be “forced” to help someone else?

I’m sick. I don’t get sick much. Somehow I still don’t quite believe I will ever get really sick but the statistics say there is a 100% chance I will die of something. So that means it’s either a violent end, or one day I get really sick.

Statistics also say over 70% of my readers are American, and some other statistics say that one-seventh of them do not have health insurance.

I’m making this statistic up, but for those without health coverage, probably a good 50% of their fellow Americans believe that their lack of health insurance is deserved. If they get sick they deserve no medical attention, because they didn’t tend their own garden well enough.

In America, you’re free to seek and acquire everything you need. Somehow, many people think this means the same as: if you don’t have everything you need, then you don’t deserve everything you need. No health insurance? Didn’t work hard enough. Simple.

My sinuses are blocking some of my brain right now so maybe I’m oversimpifying it, but isn’t that the basic philosophy, for many, many people?

The population contains two hundred million self-professed followers of Christ and most of them believe that it is absurd to pay a dime for someone else to see a doctor.

Makes me think of a joke:

How many Ayn Rand objectivists does it take to screw in a light bulb?

None. The market will sort it out.

I generally don’t talk about single political issues here. And I’m not right now. This post isn’t about health care. Or Capitalism. It’s about something way bigger, as always. 

There is a terrible notion out there that is relatively common: that haves deserve to be haves, and have-nots deserve to be have-nots. It sounds sensible if you don’t really think about it.

If you do think about it you’ll quickly realize that it means, to begin with, that the disadvantaged (for whatever reason) deserve less, are worth less, and that there is no justice until they have less. If someone gets to see a doctor without paying for it, for example, then they are getting away with something.

It implies that the mythical quality of “strength of character” is all that separates the haves from the have-nots, and that this quality is all the disadvantaged are truly missing, and that rightly they are to be blamed for that.

It presumes that being poor in a nation with a free market economy can only be a moral failing — rather than an inevitable product of the system, rather than a social condition whose existence is necessary in order for other people to be rich. Being poor can only arise from some kind of choice to be not good enough, as the popular “get off your ass” sentiment goes. Many people really do believe this.

If you get into an argument about this, all the rebuttals you’ll face can be boiled down to this:

Why should *I* be forced to help someone else?

Here’s why:

Because you’re better off if other people aren’t suffering so much.

Even if you truly cannot see a reason why the suffering of another person is relevant to you, there’s still an ice-cold pragmatic reason to redistribute wealth, if you need one.

No matter which way you dice it, you’re better off if you live in a society that does not create large numbers of destitute people as a part of its nature. Even if they don’t live next to you.

Crime, distrust, self-destruction, poverty and other conditions we all hate grow directly out of lives that are missing something vital. Education. Health. Self-respect and the respect of society.

Even the richest are better off if they are made to be slightly less rich in order to reduce the number of poor and destitute. Not even to be kind, necessarily, but just to live in a society that is unwilling to bear the enormous social problems created by a huge, incurably destitute lower class.

And such a society cannot exist without an obligation (not a suggestion) for the haves to contribute to the quality of the lives of the have-nots, even if it is more than they might “deserve.”

Nobody is able to create by themselves all that they feel they deserve. Even those who live at the top of the pile.


This and 16 other classic Raptitude articles can be found in This Will Never Happen Again. Now available for your e-reader, mobile device, or PC. See reviews here.

This will never happen again cover

Learn to live in the present

Everyday mindfulness has transformed my life, and has for countless others. You can use it to reduce stress, deal calmly with trouble, and experience joy and peace throughout each day. Making it a habit is easier than you probably think. Learn how.


Emil November 30, 2011 at 5:35 pm

Do the rich really need the poor to be rich? How sound is this logic? (just wondering)

David November 30, 2011 at 9:55 pm

We can get very complicated with an answer to this question, but put it this way: the average income in the world is seven to ten thousand dollars. For someone to make more than that, someone else must make less than that. “Rich,” if it means anything, must mean you have what most others do not. The more millionaires a society is able to support, the more inequity there must be across the whole population.

Karen J November 30, 2011 at 11:32 pm

Right on, David! Here’s another way to look at the same answer:
“Rich” is a relative term, and therefore requires a(t least one) corresponding category, that isn’t “rich”, to relate to. Thus: Yes, the rich need the poor (and the middle classes).
[The incredible wealth and income disparity between "the rich" and "the poor" (or even "the middle classes") in the current USA (and other societies) invites a whole different discussion. On a different post!]

Steve December 1, 2011 at 2:34 pm

There is a theory that was written about in the middle ages. It said that society passes through 4 seasons: warrior, priest, banker, mob. And back to warrior. In a way, each way produces its successor. The abuses of the warrior beget the priest, etc. The author said that you could tell what age you were living in by whose buildings were the tallest: castle, church, bank, pyre.

We have been in a money phase for a while. There also seem to be cycles within cycles.

The ruler makes the rules and bankers do not like to share. But each way has its form of violence.

If we were in the warrior phase, you would think it was okay for the strongest to have all the stuff b/c he could. You would justify it and it would feel natural. It would be okay for the ruler to take what he wanted and okay for the geeks to die under his boot or by his withholding food or medical care. Slavery would be just swell. Normal and therefore rationalized.

Money has its own brutality. It hires its goons to gas and shoot and passively let die all who impede its progress. Hey, its mine. Die. God did not make you strong, smart, rich or did not make you part of the mob with the pitchforks. Depending on which phase you’re in.

The ‘let them eat cake’ crowd is just time away from the guillotine, according to this theory.

I would like to think we are ready to understand that our technology has replaced labor to the extent that we can move to a higher level of motivation than scratching out a living, but I see little evidence for it. The only hope is for a kind of Berlin wall change where the walls just come down over night.

Todd December 8, 2011 at 6:40 pm

Lets say that I have gone to college for 4 years and then to post graduate school for 11 years and have become a doctor and in the process of doing so have indebted myself. People then vote to have access to my skills and knowledge for free. I will be recompensed for my labor by a prodigal government bureaucracy, with no hope of ever becoming solvent. What gives you the right to my services, if indeed health care is a right? Does that mean that at any time day or night people have the right to my services regardless of my wishes? Do you have a right to the farmers grain as well against his wishes?

David December 9, 2011 at 5:40 pm

What gives you the right to my services, if indeed health care is a right? Does that mean that at any time day or night people have the right to my services regardless of my wishes?

No, I don’t think anyone’s saying that.

I went to school to be a surveyor. All three levels of my government spend money building roads and underground utilities, and I end up providing some of those services and receiving some of those dollars. If I choose to get into that line of work, incurring debt or whatever, that is my prerogative. The people do want public roads and public utilities, because clearly it is better to live in a society where these services are provided. I fulfill this role in the system voluntarily, and if I don’t like the fact that I am being paid to provide these services (because I think certain classes of people don’t deserve to use roads or whatever) then I don’t have to.

So, in the bizarre sense that you’re describing, yes everyone has a “right” to the fruits of my services — but only as long as I choose a line of employment that is funded with public dollars. The state pays for certain types of infrastructure with taxes, and that money will all ultimately end up in the hands of private citizens like me who are paid to provide those services. Whether I incur insurmountable student debt is entirely my problem and depends on how sensible I am with my personal finances. If there are doctors out there who would refuse to treat someone because they aren’t paying their own bill, I think they chose the wrong profession.

Sir Evidence August 4, 2012 at 3:57 pm

Why you shouldn’t be forced to do anything against your will, if what you do does not violate other people’s life, property or liberty.

One rule of thumb about force is that “force begets force,” even when governments (namely, politicians) do it with well-intentioned laws. Laws are laws. They have to be respected or else. But there are rational and irrational laws. Rational laws use force to defend and protect honest, law-abiding citizens. Irrational laws initiate force against law-abiding citizens with abuse of power. Taxation is an example of one form of initiation of force on the part of a government against its own people. In totalitarian regimes headed by emperors, kings, czars, führers, and soviet leaders taxation is a logical form of abuse of power. Taxation implies the right of some people to force others to pay and spend their money for some “noble and not-so-noble” cause. In other words, it is the morality advocated in The Prince” by Machiavelli: The justification of ignoble means for a noble purpose.

Rationally speaking, government, I mean a moral government, exists for ethical reasons only. It should be an institution created and owned by the people. People should be the sovereign employers of those who get a job in government, because a government is a delegated institution that represents the moral standard of the people who institute it. If people can claim that they deserve something, all people on earth deserve to have a government that exists solely for the moral purpose of protecting each individual’s right to one’s life, one’s legitimately earned property and one’s legitimate liberty. It does not exist for the licentious purpose of taking from some, against their will, to give to others because they have a need. Everyone has needs. It’s just a matter of deciding which need should be recognized and who should be forced to pay for it by majority rule, which is another form of dictatorship. If I want to keep all the money I earn, but I am forced to give some by law to the politicians because they can use it more wisely than me, I don’t really care if I live under a czar, an emperor or a democracy.

Production is always scarcer than need and want. There has always been more need in the world than there are human means to fill it. And there is more poverty, more need and want, in those places where productivity is hampered by government power than there is poverty in those places where governments refrain from trying to be all-knowing managers of other people economic decisions. The poor have always been served better where people are free from government’s abuse of power. This said, I do not share the idea that anarchy is what society needs and government should be abolished. Rules are needed the second we form a relationship with another person. The smallest society is the relationship between two people. If 50% of the marriages don’t make it, that tells you that people have a very hard time telling each other which rules to follow. Anarchy can be implemented only if a single person goes to live on a desert island. There, he has no need for rules, because no one can violate his right to life, property, and liberty. These rights, and the rules we accept to protect them, constitute the reason why we need a rational, moral government for living in a moral society.

Ophelia December 12, 2011 at 8:08 am

Brilliantly written! Kudos :)

A Critic January 15, 2012 at 8:27 pm

“Because you’re better off if other people aren’t suffering so much.”

So you will make me suffer and I’ll be better off for it?

No thanks, I’m not into S&M games.

I’m poor and uninsured. I don’t want your health care, I don’t want your insurance, I don’t want your help. I just want to be left alone.

A Critic January 15, 2012 at 8:29 pm

“Crime, distrust, self-destruction, poverty and other conditions we all hate grow directly out of lives that are missing something vital.”

How can you add that something vital missing by creating the things we all hate? DOES NOT COMPUTE.

Michael February 17, 2012 at 11:40 am

Hi there, David. Long time reader, first time poster! I see I’m a few months late to this party (159 comments, wow!), but I’m glad to see the exchange of a lot of wonderful ideas and perspectives. This is a really important topic that should be discussed more often.

I remember reading this article some months ago and agreeing with it (as a stringent liberal), but having rediscovered it, I don’t feel quite the same way (as a now strict libertarian). Some of the libertarian posters here have added some commentary on how taxation is tantamount to theft, and I am inclined to agree. As you are from Canada, I think you have a better idea of what does work in your country, but some Americans have a better idea of how our country doesn’t work. The American government is not a benevolent humanitarian force, and I would argue that it hasn’t been at any time in the last hundred years. Most of us who disagree with the principles of the Federal Income Tax feel that our money doesn’t just go to helping the impoverished, but also that it goes to undeclared wars and bank bailouts, and is ultimately contributing to the system that is running itself into the ground.

Our tax dollars not only go to helping the impoverished, but they also go to bailing out these “too big to fail” industries (primarily military-industrial and medical-industrial complexes) and banks instead of the impoverished. Our health care, for example, is atrocious. The medical industrial complex here is highly regulated, and it suffers for it. It keeps getting more expensive–in every market, new technology makes prices go down (which is why many people in the Middle East may not have running water or electricity, but they have cell phones and coverage). In the medical business, prices go up. The Obamacare that’s been so talked about is nothing like Candian health care–Obamacare is not government owned. Americans are forced to sign up with a private insurance company or face an IRS tax penalty.

The health care system Americans face right now is abysmal. There is a strong corporatist agenda amongst these huge industries, mainly because of these government regulations that grant them powerful lobbyists and the like. I believe that money is integral to maintaining a proper healthcare system, but we should consider where our money is going and who it’s actually helping, in regards to the notion of taxation. I recall Ralph Waldo Emerson, a 19th century American philosopher who devised the notion of the “wicked dollar.” He suggests that we often give our money to those in need out of guilt or to ease our conscience, and not necessarily out of charity. Essentially, the wicked dollar suggests we are being forced (via coercion from our conscience) to donate, and not because it’s the right thing to do. Actually, your article “Does Charity Leave You Cold?” covers this quite well. The same concept applies here, except it is compounded not only by the fact that our government is not in the business of helping people, but that the federal government also an industrial profit machine that tries to police the world.

One of the core values we learn in life is that we cannot force others to change, which is what our federal government attempts to do–at the cost of liberty, it attempts to legislate morality. It doesn’t work.

Great read as always, David! Looking forward to any replies, there are a lot of important ideas to be discussed. :)

Paul September 2, 2012 at 11:51 am

My small contribution to this discussion is just to comment that there has been research done around the world about values. Sissela Bok (1995) “Common Values” stated that people in all times and places must endorse three sets of values:
1. Positive duties of mutual care and reciprocity,
2. Negative injunctions against violence, deceit, and betrayal,
3. Norms for rudimentary fairness and procedural justice in cases of conflict involving these positive duties or negative injunctions.

So we need to do good things, not do bad things and have access to fairness in whatever processes are necessary to resolve any conflicts. The first two of these are in one’s own control but the third depends on locality, luck, and trust. It is concerning if folk in developed, massively wealthy nations like the USA feel so disenfranchised from their own social institutions…

And an observation – the problem with discussions, when they are couched in the terms of ‘universal values’ is that there is a presumption that the value-position we are arguing from is ‘universally’ good, and so a person disagreeing with us is missing a crucial understanding (to our way of thinking) or is morally dodgy. It creates a field of white-noise in which you can barely hear your own thoughts, let alone the views of another person coming from a different context.


Warren Dew October 1, 2012 at 11:11 am

You’ve made some mistaken assumptions in this article. Human, yes, but humans also gather information and correct their views.

The key statistic you miss is that the majority of those without health insurance in the U.S. have chosen to be free of insurance. They simply have other higher priorities, such as an apartment of their own, or commuting in a car instead of by bus. That was true for me when I spent a few years uninsured. For those who truly can’t afford health insurance, medicaid has been around for decades. Is it my place, or yours, to interfere with that decision?

The other mistaken assumption you make is that if we weren’t forced to help, we wouldn’t help. Possibly that assumption is true for you, who must think about how to be human. It is not true for me, nor for many other humans. We help when we can, and when it is needed. And forcing others to help when that is difficult for them is as bad as failing to help those in need.

Mary November 7, 2012 at 3:49 pm

I just ‘stumbled’ here. I love this piece! :)

murielar November 16, 2012 at 10:50 am

I guess helping others, as many other things in life, depends not on morality or religion or politics, but on having a clear conscience and feeling a better human being. We have all heard about people dying in wars and other countries, but it usually does not disturb our conscience, we are so used to it… When someone bothers about it, he or she joins some organization and takes action…and feels better with himself.

Diane December 8, 2012 at 10:51 am

Thank you for expressing this so well.

Padukah Tangerine March 23, 2013 at 11:07 pm

Oh David, I was about to be in love with you because of some of your other writing, and ask if you’d consider marrying a surgeon, but in response to your question, “Why should you be forced to help someone else?” I can only ask: what is force? and, why should anyone ever use force on another?

David March 24, 2013 at 9:55 am

Well, if we live under a government, we are required to comply with their laws. If we do not, we can be forcibly imprisoned, fined, etc.

Taxation is in this sense a form of force. Some people think it is wrong for that reason, but most of us realize life is better with a functioning government than with no government and taxation is required for one.

Democratic societies are supposed to ultimately decide what services the government provides with the tax revenues. Being taxed so that public healthcare may be provided (even to people who pay little or no taxes) could be called “being forced to help someone else.”

Padukah Tangerine March 25, 2013 at 6:52 pm

Oh, I agree that “Being taxed so that public healthcare may be provided (even to people who pay little or no taxes) [IS] “being forced to help someone else””!

But I cannot believe that increasing the potential violence [force] in this world is the way to improve it.

Surely there are voluntary and peaceful ways to accomplish the goal of improving access to healthcare whilst improving healthcare generally… I don’t know of any voluntary methods other than giving and trading– both of which work splendidly when not corrupted by corporate-government collusion. People are so quick to use violence as a means to their ends. Sigh.

David March 31, 2013 at 2:53 pm

Don’t miss the point reacting to the word. Nobody said increasing the potential violence in the world is the way to improve it. Do you understand that the word “force” in the title refers only to the appropriation of tax dollars — something we do anyway, and which all reasonable people acknowledge is necessary? The title is a rebuttal to conservative viewpoints on public health care, which often claim that public services are tantamount to forcing them to help someone who doesn’t deserve it. I am using their words.

Padukah Tangerine March 27, 2013 at 7:29 pm

Apologies, I should have made that a question: do you think violence is better than non-violence to ensure that “everyone” get what you think they need?

David March 31, 2013 at 2:54 pm

No. You seem bent on missing the point here.

Garrett April 19, 2013 at 9:27 pm

First of all, I appreciated Carl’s link to the “Just World Fallacy” article. The myth that anyone with great monetary wealth surely must have worked hard is (or should be) terribly transparent.

Secondly, I’d like to make a simple point about money as a way of providing some food for thought. This thing referred to as “money” is merely a social construct with no intrinsic value. Does it strike anyone else as absurd and inhumane that billions of people are denied that which does have intrinsic value (food, clean water, clean air, etc.) because they lack that which does not?

Garrett April 20, 2013 at 12:04 am

Those who are tossing around the term “theft” seem to be making the false assumption that their position/status isn’t itself the product of one kind of theft or another.

A reading recommendation: http://www.amptoons.com/blog/files/mcintosh.html. And that applies to the members of any historically dominant group.

Historical injustices, such as Social Security benefits being denied to all but white males for a lengthy stretch of time, have lingering effects. To say nothing of present day injustices…of course, there’s no such thing if you subscribe to the “just world fallacy.”

There is no “free market.” Never has been, never will be. It’s a Randian Fantasy. Read Karl Polanyi’s The Great Transformation. And, as I said in my previous comment, the very notion of money (this abstract social construct) is an absurdity if you think critically about it. I highly, highly recommend reading David Graeber’s book Debt: The First 5000 Years. Here’s a link to a review: http://thenewinquiry.com/blogs/zunguzungu/david-graebers-debt-my-first-5000-words/. If you follow the link that appears in the second comment in the left hand margin (to the Ludwig von Mises Institute site), you’ll find a discussion in which Graeber himself thoroughly rips to shreds the argument put forth by his critic.

While we’re on the topic of social constructs, borders/countries are utterly arbitrary. “My country” this, “my country” that…it’s all nonsense.

All that said, ‘A Critic’ has made some very valid points. Most notably the fact that government – in the sense being discussed here – is run at the behest of Big Banks like Goldman Sachs (Timothy Geithner as Sec. of the Treasury), Big Pharma, Big Oil (Exxon, etc.), the military industrial complex and other transnational corporations. The revolving door (between the FDA or the EPA and the very industries they are meant to regulate) would make your head spin. The foxes are ‘guarding’ the henhouse. That’s no conspiracy. It’s out in the open. And the nation known as the “United States” (again, an arbitrary designation) is certainly not alone in that regard, even if the supporting evidence might be more egregious here than it is in, say, Canada or Japan or various European nations.

I’m afraid the notion that “government is we the people” is quite naive. As is the idea that “we the people” simply need to elect less corrupt people. It’s not just naive; it’s laughable, really. I suggest becoming familiar with Dunbar’s Number. To quote the Wikipedia page, “Dunbar’s number is a suggested cognitive limit to the number of people with whom one can maintain stable social relationships.” That number would seem to be right around 150. So, yeah, that’s a bit less than 320 million (US population). Another reading recommendation: http://www.jeffvail.net/2005/03/theory-of-power-online.html.

People have been purposely scared into believing anarchy (or “left wing libertarianism,” which shouldn’t be confused with Ron Paul/Ayn Rand nonsense) is synonymous with “chaos,” but it’s not necessarily so. It’s like when Christians imply atheists or agnostics must frequently engage in horrifyingly immoral acts. We know that’s not true, and we know there have been many anarchic societies throughout human history that have not produced the results one is propagandized to believe must be the result of “anarchy.”

David, I love your blog. I discovered it this past weekend, and I’ve found so many of your posts (such as “Forget World Peace”) to be deeply thought-provoking. I’ve probably read 30+ of your articles already. I hope you’ll have a chance to respond to the emails I’ve sent you.

Garrett April 20, 2013 at 12:32 am

See, I fell into the trap myself. Instead of “the nation known as…,” that should read “the body of land known as…”

Garrett April 20, 2013 at 12:33 am

Of course, that last comment of mine won’t make sense unless my previous comment passes the moderation process. :)

Eusebio Mccrobie July 14, 2013 at 7:55 am

not whenever they seriously dont care about our survival which they dont it may be bullshit but when it does occur it would most likely be somthing similar to this . NO warning whatsoever, thats why all of the key governments of the world have already been developing underground bunkers which probably want operate anyway

Louise July 16, 2013 at 5:07 pm

Hello David,

Great article! I grew up in the UK but now live in the US, and often ponder the dramatic difference between the two countries when it comes to their approach to healthcare.

I think, in part, it comes down to the American Dream- although I appreciate its optimism, it also has potential to be highly destructive (see Willy Loman…). As Malcom Gladwell (“Outliers”) and others have pointed out, success is in fact often as much down to luck as individual merit.

You might like this talk by Alain de Botton if you haven’t already seen it.
At minute 6, he starts talking about meritocracy.


Many don’t deserve their misfortune. When we fail to see this, we inflict untold harm on our fellow citizens and simultaneously do ourselves (as a society) a great disservice. When we do see it, perhaps we’ll develop greater compassion and things like universal healthcare will be embraced.

Thanks for being a voice of reason,

Don September 18, 2013 at 11:40 am

“Should you be forced to help someone else?”

The author asks a great question. The answer is simple, NO. I’m shocked that there has been so much discussion without anyone answering the actual question.

Even if the question was asked ‘should’ you help another person depends on many factors. Should you help them up when they fall? Yes! Should you help them rob a bank? No!

As always, the discussion will wind it’s way this way and that, with lots of great points made and no agreement reached. Let’s see if we can all agree with one thing. Each person has the right to choose for themselves, they have agency over their lives, freedom to choose what they will do in each situation (do not confuse freedom of choice with freedom from consequences). Does anyone disagree that this is we all have this ability to choose for ourselves what we do every moment of every day?

It is because I believe every person has the right to choose for themselves what they do with their lives that I also believe no one has the right to choose for someone else without their consent (agency).

It is wrong for individuals to force their will on another individual. It is wrong for groups to do the same. When all is said and done, that right (call it agency, freedom of choice, ??) is the most important thing you have, a gift from the cosmos that no one can take from you even if they try.

So the answer is simple. No, you should not be forced to help anyone.

Alison Moore Smith October 25, 2013 at 3:50 am

I’ve had chronic sinusitis since 1998. Send me your money. I deserve it. In fact, it’s my right.

P.S. Conservatives give significantly more of their own money to charitable causes. Weird. But I’m happy to give your money away. Put your money where your mouth is. I accept PayPal.

Matt November 5, 2013 at 8:24 pm

As far as US government taxes watch Walter Burien CAFR reports on youtube. Even if you only get through 40 min it will blow your mind.
Reality blogger is another good one. Fact based research that will leave you changed how you look at the government and our so called rights.

One of the most scary and interesting things I learned was the legal definition of freedom.
Bottom line is you need to unlearn everything you learned in government run school.
The truth is very scary indeed.

Homer November 28, 2013 at 8:26 am

The rich helping the poor is certainly a case of reciprocation, because the rich are only rich in the first place because they exploit the poor.

E.g. that smartphone in your pocket was only possible because of slave labour, at several stages in its production, from mineral mining to assembly.

But the moral obligation to help the poor goes far beyond mere reciprocation, it’s also about compassion.

If you came across a road accident victim in the middle of nowhere, and just walked away without at least calling an ambulance, thus condemning him to death, that is no different, morally speaking, than consciously deciding to murder him.

Similarly, being aware of any other sort of plight, having the means to help, but refusing to do so, makes you just as culpable, morally speaking, as if you caused that plight in the first place.

So yes, I strongly believe that those who are able but unwilling to help others should be forced to do so, for exactly the same reason that a murderer should be forced to go to prison, because they both deliberately and maliciously cause harm.

Asking “what’s in it for me?” is a bit like expecting there to be some sort of reward for NOT murdering someone. You don’t get a prize for being a decent human being, and you’re not supposed to, but you should be punished if you’re not.

Jimmy January 3, 2014 at 10:03 pm

Unbelievable I just read all the articles first time I’ve given up my e-mail address in years your recipes for living life are very similar to mine especially what you said about beliefs. It’s so true believing anything wholeheartedly just closes your mind to a truth that could be right in front of us one day. And you’re on the money about everything else look forward to reading more very refreshing. As I’m sure you know it can be extremely hard to walk between there perceptual reality. and our ever-changing ever evolving concept of it. It is hard to retain your sanity in a room full of insane people that refuse all logic and reason. Thank you for shining your light

Comments on this entry are closed.

{ 4 Trackbacks }

Raptitude is an independent blog by . Some links on this page may be affiliate links, which means I might earn a commission if you buy certain things I link to. In such cases the cost to the visitor remains the same.