Dear Lady Liberty, I recognize the deep truth in your words concerning the initial, reflexive nature of disgust and its subsequent, dangerous transformation into public policy. You have beautifully articulated the process by which a private shiver becomes a public structure, trading true dignity for mere comfort.
However, from a German perspective, which places a fundamentally different emphasis on the concept of dignity and its expression in the state, your analysis points directly to a constitutional tension inherent in the US system: the nearly exclusive focus on individual liberty and individual dignity.
The Dignity Divide: Relational vs. Individual
In Germany, human dignity (**Menschenwürde**) is enshrined in Article 1 of the Basic Law (**Grundgesetz**) as absolute, inviolable, and the supreme guiding principle of the state. This dignity is inherently relational (**Beziehungswürde**).
• Individual Dignity (US emphasis): Often interpreted through a libertarian lens, focusing on negative rights—freedom from state interference, absolute autonomy, and a sphere of self-determination unburdened by societal obligation. The duty is primarily on the individual to assert their rights.
• Relational Dignity (German emphasis): Recognizes that human worth is interdependent and realized within a community. It demands positive obligations from the state and from citizens toward each other. The state's duty is not just to protect the individual from others, but also to actively guarantee the conditions for a dignified existence for everyone.
The Missing 'Duty of Care' (**Fürsorgepflicht**)
The problem you describe—where reaction becomes policy—is structurally enabled by the American focus on liberty without an equal emphasis on a duty of care (**Fürsorgepflicht**).
The deep-seated issues we are witnessing—from stark social inequality to fractured public health response—may be baked into the Constitution precisely because the framework prioritizes individual negative freedom above a foundational social duty to ensure a baseline dignity for all citizens.
Where the US system might see a "private shiver"—that initial reaction of disgust or discomfort—the libertarian impulse allows that shiver to be used as justification for non-intervention, for exclusion, or for deregulation, arguing that duty only lies with the self.
Conversely, a system grounded in relational dignity views that initial reaction not as a policy template, but as a signal that the social contract is failing, demanding state intervention to re-establish the conditions for mutual respect and shared well-being.
Your call for "teaching regulation, curiosity, presence" is the civic practice needed, but in the German view, the state itself is constitutionally mandated to establish the framework for this active, caring community.
Without that legal mandate of duty of care, the individual liberty you cherish risks devolving into a system that only protects the comfort of the privileged, inevitably fostering the very hierarchies you lament.
Jay as always a deep thought provoking response, such a close read of one of my longer pieces and your own long and thoughtful response are truly a treasure to me.
I also agree with your basic premise, both the twisting that can occur with an entirely individualistic point of view and the inherent need for a structure that recognizes government as having a mandated legal duty to care—to intervene. For me this comes in the form of responsibility verses obligation. For example take Amazon which is quite proud of paying no taxes while also paying starvation wages. They rely on the government to cover the difference despite not putting any toward the safety net they rely on—forsaking their responsibility to their employees and to the social network they impoverish by continually pillaging the coffers and offering nothing in return. We have a minimum wage but companies like Amazon have lobbied to ensure that doesn’t rise. In a government designed with a mandate of care—you raise the minimum wage. They failed their responsibility so the government upholds the obligation of ensuring equitable access to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. What’s more the founders created a system made to change with our needs knowing this would be required for a lasting government. When the government fails to meet our needs we don’t shut it down we change it—at least that’s what we use to believe here. Lately I feel in the minority.
Lady Libertea, I hear the depth of your thoughts, and I agree completely with your distinction: responsibility versus obligation. Your analysis goes right to the core contradiction I see in the American system.
I see the issue you frame. The government succeeds at meeting its obligation—the function of providing a safety net—but it sacrifices the duty of prevention—the structure that makes companies fully meet their payroll responsibilities.
From my perspective, this failure goes further: The American government is not meeting its obligation at all, and I see serious efforts underway to dismantle the few supportive structures currently in place. This move shows a system not just failing to protect, but actively retreating from its protective role entirely.
This dynamic flows directly from the system's foundational difference. The founders explicitly rejected the communal model and the positive protections that my society and all of modern Europe implemented to limit exploitation.
The US system holds freedom from interference as its main guiding value. This focus, applied to corporations, becomes a clear path to market exploitation.
The crisis causation shows the same dynamic. The financial collapses of 1929 and 2008 resulted from private recklessness. Yet, the scale of the resulting disorder shows a system whose design actively enabled that recklessness. The government's omission of protective structure was a political choice that provided widespread disorder. This system prioritized the financial freedom of the few over the economic security of the many. That focus is why the original document did not reject slavery outright, and why the United States remains a democratic country where child labor and exploitation find vast allowance.
The Amazon example confirms this structural flaw repeating itself: the system legally protects the corporation's freedom from regulation and taxes, allowing it to treat the taxpayer-funded safety net as a corporate subsidy. This shows the market is not truly free; the government's permissive stance rigs the market.
This flaw finds its strength in the very Constitution, and I see the current ruling approach aiming for a return to that original document, often without the full Bill of Rights and its amendments. This move would only secure the structural flaws further.
I wonder how the conversation can successfully define the duty of prevention—this protective structure—as a necessary move toward economic stability for everyone.
Thank you Cassandra! I know this one is a little longer than my usual but considering I’m condensing the arguments in a book to an essay series, I was rather proud.
We don’t make laws based on disgust, mine or anyone’s.
Thank you truly for your words. I am honored and humbled. That is my goal in every piece and I struggled with whether to post this or begin this series. I was struggling with whether the unpacking of this book and laying out its arguments was as important as say chronicling the abuses of ice or addressing the play by play news cycle, but with every chapter I read I felt like the writers were speaking to me asking me to tell this story. The opening tells of using their arguments and continuing the work, pairing the intellectual with the personal in a way the average person can grasp—so we set that as our goal. To hear your words I feel in my soul the rightness of this work and the need for it—the restoration it could give others, and my flagging resolve and fearful questioning begin to dissipate. Thank you, my dear friend, for joining us on the journey.
Well done. I think your essay points to the difference between liberty (or liberalism) and democracy. We tend to think that democracy is the fundamental ideal that defines America, but I believe what our founders really prioritized was classical liberalism - the idea of "I'll mind my business if you mind yours." Democracy was just the best possible means of instituting liberalism and still having a functional state (if someone has to rule, better to rule oneself than be ruled by others). But liberalism as a defining principle is being replaced by others such as nationalism, which is really less a coherent ideal than raw chauvanism, and the belief that democracy is everything - and that latter belief can lead to a tyrrany of the majority, which is certainly what we see with democratically passed laws that discriminate against individuals.
Excellent point KTB, what most speaks to me about your words—perhaps because I know where this series is headed next is your callout to the tyranny of the majority. The Founders attempted to build safeguards to protect us against this but after decades of erosions those safeguards have started to splinter and crack. Don’t you worry though. We will be supplying all the courage tea needed fortify our defenders while we shore up these breaches in our society.
This is a powerfully true piece. Such important work. Shared and shared and shared...because people NEED THIS right now. Your courage is inspiring. I stand with you!
Thank you Wendy! We are always proud and so filled with giggles when you are in the tea garden. I am honored you found it worthy and am looking forward to next week immensely it’s rare we flex biblical knowledge and fact check our fellow brothers and sisters in Christ—but since their religious leaders, elders, and now their civic leaders have failed in their duty-this lore keeper dreamer and dillydallyer is now forced to intervene. Fitting we should strip the puritan from the law and history’s gaze in the month of witches and magic when we celebrate and giggle with what they tried to silence. It’s gonna be a wicked good time! 😈🎃🧙♀️
“When private revulsion becomes public policy, democracy begins to rot from the inside out. We are all entitled to disgust by things we choose not to participate in — hence why you are also entitled to the choice of participation or the lack thereof. “
Milady, I absolutely loved this piece! So much truth in such a compact form, I am excited for the further installments. I was so disappointed to learn, after years of self-loathing, that bisexuals can be hated by literally everyone. Seemed to me that I had finally achieved a sense of freedom, maybe even a sense of self that was a bit truer and more complete, only to find I was shunned in all the ‘reindeer games’. The cis pop just seemed to categorize me as gay, gay culture seemed to view me as at best an aberration, at worst inauthentic. Disappointing to be sure. I like your literary voice, thank you 🙏
My dear Jim, first let me congratulate you on your self awareness and your courage, not only in living your truth but speaking it here. I am sorry to hear you have not found community, I fear that we in the LGBTQ circle who perhaps should best understand that rights and personal freedom and dignity belong to all. Society does enough labeling of our without us adding fuel to the pyre. Know you always have a place and a cup here at the tea table.
A German Perspective on Dignity and Duty of Care
Dear Lady Liberty, I recognize the deep truth in your words concerning the initial, reflexive nature of disgust and its subsequent, dangerous transformation into public policy. You have beautifully articulated the process by which a private shiver becomes a public structure, trading true dignity for mere comfort.
However, from a German perspective, which places a fundamentally different emphasis on the concept of dignity and its expression in the state, your analysis points directly to a constitutional tension inherent in the US system: the nearly exclusive focus on individual liberty and individual dignity.
The Dignity Divide: Relational vs. Individual
In Germany, human dignity (**Menschenwürde**) is enshrined in Article 1 of the Basic Law (**Grundgesetz**) as absolute, inviolable, and the supreme guiding principle of the state. This dignity is inherently relational (**Beziehungswürde**).
• Individual Dignity (US emphasis): Often interpreted through a libertarian lens, focusing on negative rights—freedom from state interference, absolute autonomy, and a sphere of self-determination unburdened by societal obligation. The duty is primarily on the individual to assert their rights.
• Relational Dignity (German emphasis): Recognizes that human worth is interdependent and realized within a community. It demands positive obligations from the state and from citizens toward each other. The state's duty is not just to protect the individual from others, but also to actively guarantee the conditions for a dignified existence for everyone.
The Missing 'Duty of Care' (**Fürsorgepflicht**)
The problem you describe—where reaction becomes policy—is structurally enabled by the American focus on liberty without an equal emphasis on a duty of care (**Fürsorgepflicht**).
The deep-seated issues we are witnessing—from stark social inequality to fractured public health response—may be baked into the Constitution precisely because the framework prioritizes individual negative freedom above a foundational social duty to ensure a baseline dignity for all citizens.
Where the US system might see a "private shiver"—that initial reaction of disgust or discomfort—the libertarian impulse allows that shiver to be used as justification for non-intervention, for exclusion, or for deregulation, arguing that duty only lies with the self.
Conversely, a system grounded in relational dignity views that initial reaction not as a policy template, but as a signal that the social contract is failing, demanding state intervention to re-establish the conditions for mutual respect and shared well-being.
Your call for "teaching regulation, curiosity, presence" is the civic practice needed, but in the German view, the state itself is constitutionally mandated to establish the framework for this active, caring community.
Without that legal mandate of duty of care, the individual liberty you cherish risks devolving into a system that only protects the comfort of the privileged, inevitably fostering the very hierarchies you lament.
Jay as always a deep thought provoking response, such a close read of one of my longer pieces and your own long and thoughtful response are truly a treasure to me.
I also agree with your basic premise, both the twisting that can occur with an entirely individualistic point of view and the inherent need for a structure that recognizes government as having a mandated legal duty to care—to intervene. For me this comes in the form of responsibility verses obligation. For example take Amazon which is quite proud of paying no taxes while also paying starvation wages. They rely on the government to cover the difference despite not putting any toward the safety net they rely on—forsaking their responsibility to their employees and to the social network they impoverish by continually pillaging the coffers and offering nothing in return. We have a minimum wage but companies like Amazon have lobbied to ensure that doesn’t rise. In a government designed with a mandate of care—you raise the minimum wage. They failed their responsibility so the government upholds the obligation of ensuring equitable access to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. What’s more the founders created a system made to change with our needs knowing this would be required for a lasting government. When the government fails to meet our needs we don’t shut it down we change it—at least that’s what we use to believe here. Lately I feel in the minority.
Lady Libertea, I hear the depth of your thoughts, and I agree completely with your distinction: responsibility versus obligation. Your analysis goes right to the core contradiction I see in the American system.
I see the issue you frame. The government succeeds at meeting its obligation—the function of providing a safety net—but it sacrifices the duty of prevention—the structure that makes companies fully meet their payroll responsibilities.
From my perspective, this failure goes further: The American government is not meeting its obligation at all, and I see serious efforts underway to dismantle the few supportive structures currently in place. This move shows a system not just failing to protect, but actively retreating from its protective role entirely.
This dynamic flows directly from the system's foundational difference. The founders explicitly rejected the communal model and the positive protections that my society and all of modern Europe implemented to limit exploitation.
The US system holds freedom from interference as its main guiding value. This focus, applied to corporations, becomes a clear path to market exploitation.
The crisis causation shows the same dynamic. The financial collapses of 1929 and 2008 resulted from private recklessness. Yet, the scale of the resulting disorder shows a system whose design actively enabled that recklessness. The government's omission of protective structure was a political choice that provided widespread disorder. This system prioritized the financial freedom of the few over the economic security of the many. That focus is why the original document did not reject slavery outright, and why the United States remains a democratic country where child labor and exploitation find vast allowance.
The Amazon example confirms this structural flaw repeating itself: the system legally protects the corporation's freedom from regulation and taxes, allowing it to treat the taxpayer-funded safety net as a corporate subsidy. This shows the market is not truly free; the government's permissive stance rigs the market.
This flaw finds its strength in the very Constitution, and I see the current ruling approach aiming for a return to that original document, often without the full Bill of Rights and its amendments. This move would only secure the structural flaws further.
I wonder how the conversation can successfully define the duty of prevention—this protective structure—as a necessary move toward economic stability for everyone.
Love this explanation—and now I want a pickle. (Yes, I’m one of those…)
Oh my goodness 🥰🙌💕
Absolutely Brilliant!
So much YES! ❤️🇨🇦❤️
Thank you Cassandra! I know this one is a little longer than my usual but considering I’m condensing the arguments in a book to an essay series, I was rather proud.
We don’t make laws based on disgust, mine or anyone’s.
At least we aren’t supposed to.
With any luck, this will help us remember why.
I loved it from beginning to end and feel revitalized! 🥰🫂💕
Let’s do this!
Thank you truly for your words. I am honored and humbled. That is my goal in every piece and I struggled with whether to post this or begin this series. I was struggling with whether the unpacking of this book and laying out its arguments was as important as say chronicling the abuses of ice or addressing the play by play news cycle, but with every chapter I read I felt like the writers were speaking to me asking me to tell this story. The opening tells of using their arguments and continuing the work, pairing the intellectual with the personal in a way the average person can grasp—so we set that as our goal. To hear your words I feel in my soul the rightness of this work and the need for it—the restoration it could give others, and my flagging resolve and fearful questioning begin to dissipate. Thank you, my dear friend, for joining us on the journey.
I’m so Glad! 🥰🫂
That exactly how you should feel 💕✨
Well done. I think your essay points to the difference between liberty (or liberalism) and democracy. We tend to think that democracy is the fundamental ideal that defines America, but I believe what our founders really prioritized was classical liberalism - the idea of "I'll mind my business if you mind yours." Democracy was just the best possible means of instituting liberalism and still having a functional state (if someone has to rule, better to rule oneself than be ruled by others). But liberalism as a defining principle is being replaced by others such as nationalism, which is really less a coherent ideal than raw chauvanism, and the belief that democracy is everything - and that latter belief can lead to a tyrrany of the majority, which is certainly what we see with democratically passed laws that discriminate against individuals.
Excellent point KTB, what most speaks to me about your words—perhaps because I know where this series is headed next is your callout to the tyranny of the majority. The Founders attempted to build safeguards to protect us against this but after decades of erosions those safeguards have started to splinter and crack. Don’t you worry though. We will be supplying all the courage tea needed fortify our defenders while we shore up these breaches in our society.
This is a powerfully true piece. Such important work. Shared and shared and shared...because people NEED THIS right now. Your courage is inspiring. I stand with you!
Thank you Wendy! We are always proud and so filled with giggles when you are in the tea garden. I am honored you found it worthy and am looking forward to next week immensely it’s rare we flex biblical knowledge and fact check our fellow brothers and sisters in Christ—but since their religious leaders, elders, and now their civic leaders have failed in their duty-this lore keeper dreamer and dillydallyer is now forced to intervene. Fitting we should strip the puritan from the law and history’s gaze in the month of witches and magic when we celebrate and giggle with what they tried to silence. It’s gonna be a wicked good time! 😈🎃🧙♀️
Yet another enlightening piece.
One of my favorite passages:
“When private revulsion becomes public policy, democracy begins to rot from the inside out. We are all entitled to disgust by things we choose not to participate in — hence why you are also entitled to the choice of participation or the lack thereof. “
Milady, I absolutely loved this piece! So much truth in such a compact form, I am excited for the further installments. I was so disappointed to learn, after years of self-loathing, that bisexuals can be hated by literally everyone. Seemed to me that I had finally achieved a sense of freedom, maybe even a sense of self that was a bit truer and more complete, only to find I was shunned in all the ‘reindeer games’. The cis pop just seemed to categorize me as gay, gay culture seemed to view me as at best an aberration, at worst inauthentic. Disappointing to be sure. I like your literary voice, thank you 🙏
My dear Jim, first let me congratulate you on your self awareness and your courage, not only in living your truth but speaking it here. I am sorry to hear you have not found community, I fear that we in the LGBTQ circle who perhaps should best understand that rights and personal freedom and dignity belong to all. Society does enough labeling of our without us adding fuel to the pyre. Know you always have a place and a cup here at the tea table.
A 78 year old sends love and appreciation!