Dale was a widower of about two years, in his late 70s. He never had pets, but his grown daughter decided he needed a puppy because he seemed lonely. Dale said he enjoyed being alone and it didn’t mean he was lonely. He was happy reading, watching sports, hanging out at the library, and taking short trips, often with a small group of friends his age.
The new puppy was bothersome and Dale didn’t like it. He thought the dog knows it. Although Dale was in no way mean to the animal, he resented it, but feared his daughter would be hurt if he gave away her present. Although her intentions were good, she failed to recognize that her father was fully capable of making his own decisions.
Several weeks later I talked to Dale and he told me he had a discussion with his daughter and explained how he knew she had acted in good faith, but against his own wishes. Although he appreciated her concerns, he made it clear that he was happy with his life and that she was interfering. After some tears, Dale’s daughter acknowledged that she had overstepped her bounds. The dog was placed in a new home. Dale and his daughter are on good terms and he is back to living the life he wants and enjoys. He said he spent more than seven decades building his life and it’s just the way he wants it.
Good intentions often can be imposed on others without their approval. One person’s beliefs can be shared, but never should be forced upon someone who doesn’t share the same set of values. Tell me about your great experience at the new Russian Restaurant in town, but don’t be offended if I don’t visit the place and please don’t pick me up and take me there because you think I’d like it, even after I said no.
This form of abuse becomes particularly onerous when government gets involved to pass a law for what they believe is the good of the voters.
This kind of imposition can happen on all fronts. You might not agree on my position on a topic, but neither of us has the moral right to impose our personal position, or even strongly argue how we’re correct and the other person is wrong. Every individual has the guaranteed right to his or her own opinions and it is a mark of respect to honor the differences without rancor or hatred. That’s the basis for our liberty and the Constitutional rights that define it.
All three of the basic inalienable rights are negative, meaning they insist that everyone must leave other people alone to their ways, unless, of course, the ways are harmful to others. Regardless of how much a person may think it’s okay to kill strangers in the park, it cannot be allowed in a civil society. Believe and say what you want, but don’t expect anyone else to agree with you, and understand how deeply you violate a person’s liberty when you try to force your position on others.
Let’s talk and argue, but be clear that we don’t have to agree, but we must remain civil to the end. Although defending oneself is legitimate, no acts of aggression are tolerable. Because I want to be left alone, does not mean I hate you.
