[Voice in your head]

"If I cared equally as much about some stranger in Santa Fe or Santiago, would I resist interfering in his life to govern his choices in ways that, to me, seem best? 'Sir, you shouldn’t watch so much TV; your time would be better spent reading Tolstoy' or 'Mr. Jones, you should put that extra $100 into your savings rather than spend it on tickets for a football game.' Remember, we’re imagining that I care as much about this stranger as I care about myself; he means the world to me. I truly yearn for him to have a happy and good life; I desire this outcome every bit as much as I desire to have such a life for myself and every bit as much as I desire that my son enjoy such a life. It would pain me terribly to see this beloved stranger make choices that seem to me to be unwise for him."

Don't most people realize that everyone has a different idea of what brings them happiness? It is for that reason that healthy families, who "truly yearn" for one another "to have a happy and good life" do not harass one another as the author implies people would. While I agree with the gyst of the article, I think his example is so weak as to detract from it.

[dcwusmc]

Don't most people realize that everyone has a different idea of what brings them happiness? It is for that reason that healthy families, who "truly yearn" for one another "to have a happy and good life" do not harrass one another as the author implies people would.

I do really hate to disillusion you, but your statement is incorrect. Except perhaps as within a family. Strangers are all too willing to harrass, intimidate and even imprison or kill to ensure that their views are followed to the letter. It's all done in the name of do-goodism and it's the rankest of evils.