20 THINGS I LEARNED FROM COVID 19

1. The comfort of physical touch cannot be replaced by audio visual stimuli.

2. Food is more important than trinkets and consumable junk.  Food workers are least appreciated until they are not there. And not supported when they are needed the most.

3. Asking younger adults to sacrifice for the elderly is not respecting their needs.  It reverses the cycle of life.

4. End of life care (nursing homes) is not reliable or safe.  If you can’t care for yourself,  no one else will do it for you reliably.   But lots of companies will try to make money pretending to do it.

5. Our healthcare system is broken.  Health is an attitude toward life,  not a way to stimulate the GDP.

6. A country that fractures politically in a crisis is very vulnerable, and shows a breakdown in leadership.

7. We no longer have a functioning central government, just a beltway for lobbyists. 

8. The weakness of the federal government is allowing states to reassert themselves.  Given the very different values of some states from others,  this is probably necessary. 

9. The central bank’s ability to stabilize the economy depends on its ability to exert appropriate influence in various markets.  When this is interfered with by special interests it cannot be effective.  The assurances about supporting small business are lies because the funding earmarked for small business is not accessible in a reliable fashion.  The US federal government is motivated to protect large businesses as the easiest solution to producing a rebound economy.

10. It is possible to do a lot of business on the internet digitally,  but not all business.

11. Not driving saves the environment.  Not buying stuff saves the environment.  Not wanting so much stuff does not make us poorer.  Wanting stuff we cannot afford makes us poorer.

12. Not using so much energy reduces the importance of oil in the economy.  The country has not figured out an alternative commodity to stimulate business.

13.Spending more time with people we love builds the relationship (or ends a false one).

14. The need to travel somewhere means we are not happy where we are.  The vulnerability of the hospitality industry reflects its role in distracting us from our lives.

15. How are we surviving without filling up life with sporting events and mass gatherings?  Why are they so important?  Emotionally and economically?

16. What would a “simpler” society look like? Would it be economically stable?

17. International supply chains for products save money but complicate access.  What does a country need to produce for its own security?

18. Anyone we honor as a “hero” we treat as expendable.  Policemen, first responders, EMTs, nurses, doctors have all become part of the “saving lives at the expense of themselves and their families”, and called “heroes”, but get furloughed when the cities or hospitals run out of money.

19. Many people aged 18-45 were already struggling in the economy, and are faced with greater economic hardships with this downturn.  Where is the economic focus on their needs?  A one time payment of $1200 covers one months rent in many places.  What happens to them after that?

20. The flowers are blooming this Spring.  There are lots of birds around.  Slowing down to appreciate the natural world does not cost money or make money for someone else.  Is it still worthwhile?

SOME TASKS FOR AMERICA IN THE 2020s

There is an election in 2020,  but I am not running for anything,  and one year (or 4 years) is too short a time frame to address many complex problems.  A curse of electronic media is encouraging an immediate response to situations with difficult complicated solutions. The following list of challenges requires solutions if the US is to move forward as a functioning country:

PEOPLE:  Several problems face us as the community of persons.  (In a corporation they would be called "human resources",  but that does not cover the range of issues in a geographic boundary.)
IMMIGRATION Who should be allowed to enter the US and have access to citizenship?  What qualifications must they have?  For more than three administrations the country has been unable to formulate policies for persons wishing to emigrate into the US.   The current administration's efforts to make this a divisive issue continues a failure to resolve this over the last 20 years.  Reference to the inscription on the Statue of Liberty is not a policy,  and the split between parties interferes with a cooperative rational solution.


HEALTHCARE Is healthcare a “right” for all persons? Does the society have an obligation to provide healthcare to all?  Should the quality vary according to ability to pay?   There are three questions  for healthcare: Who should receive it?  Who should pay for it (how should it be paid for)?  And why is it so much more expensive in the US?  Obamacare partially addresses only one of the three,  and no candidate addressed all three (in either party).

HOUSING Who is entitled to housing in the US?  Where is it available and must people move to what is available?  What produces homeless populations and how to reverse this process?

OPPORTUNITY Does the US still promise economic and social opportunity to all who will work hard enough for it?  How hard is that? Does it depend on race or other factors?  Will the US perpetuate a tiered society of economic inequality or re-balance the financial population curve?

DIVERSITY Does the country accept that a diverse population is expanding the place of non-whites and will soon alter the political balance?  What if some or all of the white population doesn’t accept this? Since its inception the US has been a diverse country.  The original inhabitants, the introduction of slaves,  the migration of French, Spanish, and English settlers,  and the annexation of indo-hispanic territories have  been ignored by the political dominance of  white "Anglo-Europeans".  This is currently challenged by the many stakeholders of the country,  along with new immigrants.  Women, which includes both females of discriminated groups,  and some females of the Anglo-European group, also protest being discriminated in work and other settings, and seek equalization of opportunities.  The Constitution did not originally enable diversity,  and amendments which support it have been undermined by the dominant political group.  This is reaching a critical point.

EDUCATION Does the society have a responsibility to educate its children? How much should they receive and what jobs be prepared to perform? The most fundamental task of any society is preparing its youth for the continuation of the future society.  The US has been failing to provide extensive educational and social training for all youth for most of its history,  and the post WW II period showed some promise of improving but these gains have been lost since the 90s.

SOCIAL CONSENSUS: Does the country have a common set of values?
 Is the US committed to maintaining a patriarchal Judeo-Christian values system,  or are women entitled to equal social and political authority? What about other gender variations which violate Judeo-Christian norms?  Are they supported in the US society?  The dominance of patriarchal male culture was unchallenged until the amendment giving women the vote.  Since the 1980s, new challenges to patriarchy  include gender diversity,  female s in authority roles,  and rejection of organized religions.  The US was never "one nation under god" (and never specified which god) and is certainly not now.  And the cultural diversity is exaggerated by the way in which cultural groups have migrated to specific regions of the country and established "cultural outposts" in these regions. The US has a crisis of cultural identity which is being attacked on all sides by political extremists.  The culture of a country cannot remain static,  it must grow and change for future needs.
REGIONAL DIVERSITY Is the US one country or a collection of different regions with different values and orientation?  Can one central government manage these differences? How much autonomy do separate regions need?

MATERIAL CHALLENGES The US economy is facing major changes with little guidance from political leadership or labor groups to guide the population through the changes.
ECONOMY Can the US create a growing economy which does not depend on consuming trash or fake financial manipulations?  The US is transitioning from a broad manufacturing economy to an "information economy" of unknown design,  and using financial manipulation to facilitate the changes.  No one knows where the changes are headed.  The changes are creating an inequality of economic opportunity which will lead to political instability (as it historically has in other places).  The impact is likely to be much more profound than the railroads which totally transformed the country.  The current dependence of the economy on financial manipulation is untenable long term,  a result already observed in England.
CLIMATE The country must make some response to the climate changes in process.  Should the US attempt to reduce factors presumed to contribute like green house gases?  How important is renewable energy?  What (expensive) steps should be taken to deal with changes in coastal sea levels?  Who should pay?  No matter how stupid you are,  or how you attempt to ignore the weather,  the data are clear that there is a change underway.  How much humans contributed to this is not clear,  and what humans can do to moderate it is also unclear.  But something must be done.  Figuring out what to do requires overcoming the denial in some,  the false assumptions of others,  and a meaningful engineering strategy for each problem that is recognized.   The increasing world population creates more trash,  other pollution,  and needs some place to avoid the worst aspects of climate change.   This is not a "homeless" problem,  or a "pollution" problem.  It impacts everyone by degrading the available, finite land.  Economic compromises that address the needs of a controlled population is essential.  The consumption of fossil fuels, and other commodities is part of the problem,  not only because of the related pollution and climate effects,  but because they are being depleted!

INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS AND SECURITY The US is a separate region of the world,  and has never mentally adjusted to  its separation or to the post cold war era.  There are not two "super powers" but multiple players in a complex military-economic world stage requiring sophisticated consideration from both State Department, military, and the public.  A leader that feeds the public babble prevents effective policy development and weakens security.  The US role in international relations is neither the “sole nuclear power bully”, the “champion of world democracy”, or the “enforcer for global corporations”.  US policy must articulate and advocate for US interests on the global stage.  In historical terms,  the US is a childhood or, at most, adolescent country.  Its prominence during and at the end of WW II is entirely unrelated to the sophistication of the population or its leaders in managing the complex relationships with other countries.  In most of its short history,  the US has used minor (or major, sometimes unsuccessful) military incursions in lieu of diplomacy to establish a foreign policy.  This is no longer possible.

POLITICAL INTEGRITY Behind all this is a collapse of political integrity in the country.  The days when we could challenge developing countries about their leaderships' exploitation of the population is over.  US candidates and leaders  depend so totally on campaign financing that their autonomy is a joke. Until this is modified,  the values of the country will reflect a small wealthy interest group. 
 Is it possible to remove enough financial influence from the political process to allow it to represent the broad goals of the country? This is not about "socialism" or preventing people from making profits.  It is about revising the political system so that financial factors do not have a significant role.  At this time, every other "democracy" accomplishes this to a better extent than the US.

 INFORMATION BOUNDARIES The internet has created a new opportunity and challenge for all the nations in the world.  It makes countries vulnerable in unanticipated ways and provides social and economic opportunities.  Currently there is no national or international process for determining how to manage this resource for mankind.  Instead ignorant people and leaders either try to "sell" its income value,  or rail about its danger, and the need to cut it off.   The most desperate and greedy people are exploiting its potential before more responsible people pay attention to the issues. 

The TRUMP presidency raised several of these issues without ever resolving any.   

 Stay tuned for coming posts regarding proposals for how to develop solutions (the actual solutions will require many participants!).  If you have other topics to include in the list please comment and I will consider them.

TOWARD RESPONSIBLE HUMAN GENOME EDITS

 Are we ready to perform genome edits?  Hynes et al have written a commentary in JAMA 

 Genome editing (link) which discusses this procedure.
See also
Nature series
 Editing ethics

The procedure is in its very early stages but already raises major issues of bioethics.

Enhancement:  "A controversial aspect of genome editing concerns its potential use for modifying physical traits and capacities beyond those typical of adequate health. For example, using somatic genome editing to improve musculature in patients with muscular dystrophy would be considered a restorative treatment, whereas using the same intervention for individuals with no known pathology and average capabilities would be considered “enhancement.” Currently, the potential benefits of applications for enhancement are unlikely to outweigh the risks, and the report recommends that such uses should not be approved at this time. With additional research, risks will probably diminish, and it will become increasingly important to have public engagement and input on howto weigh the purported benefit of any enhancement against risks and to explore the social implications, both real and feared, as governance policies develop."
Science fiction stories about spies with super-powers already clog the media.  And athletics has been plagued by biological manipulations of hormones, etc to improve athletic performance.  The idea of doing this procedure to produce a cadre of warriors or athletes is concerning,  as well as the implication that only some of the edits would be useful and the other manipulated individuals "wasted" with no realistic consent.

 Editing for Treatment or Prevention of Disease or Disability
"A ... potential application of human genome editing involves alteration of germ line cells to prevent serious disease or disability. Germ line editing has been conducted successfully in animals, but major technical issues must be overcome to use this in humans."
Although this procedure seems morally more straightforward,  it is based on the assumption that one or a small number of edits to defective alleles would produce significant change.  Diseases with single locus dominant or recessive features exist but are much rarer than the broad categories of diabetes, heart disease, hypertension, etc that represent the major sources of illness,  and are polygenetic.  This focuses the value on a small number of instances with high cost and challenges.  And it does not address the other potential role of these alleles and how altering them might be detrimental.

"Nonetheless, this line of research is of interest because there are thousands of inherited diseases caused by mutations in single genes. When no other reasonable alternatives are available, editing germ line cells could reduce the burden of disease for a child and allow prospective parents to have genetically related offspring without the risk of transmitting disease-causing mutations to their children. Because germ line editing would result in genetic changes that could be inherited by the next generation, it raises greater concerns about safety, informed consent, and unintended effects. It has also been argued that germ line gene editing crosses an ethical line, and there are concerns about equity of access and the potential effect on individuals with disabilities. Given these technical and societal concerns, the committee concludes that there is need for caution in any move toward germ line editing, but that caution does not mean prohibition."


"Although one day it may be technically safe to use genome editing for enhancement, societies, professional organizations, and governmental agencies still may choose not to approve such applications because they violate certain core principles such as respect for persons, equity, and fairness. Moreover, it is important to emphasize that many of the traits, such as intelligence, that are commonly discussed in the media as potential targets for enhancement, are complex and thus very unlikely to be readily modified by genome editing."

"The report recommends that clinical trials of germ line editing might become permissible but only after
much more research to meet appropriate risk/benefit standards for authorizing such trials.Even then, germline editing should be permitted only for compelling reasons and under strict oversight. In the United States, authorities are currently unable to consider proposals for this clinical research because of a prohibition on use of federal funds by the US Food and Drug Administration to review “research in which a human embryo is intentionally created or modified to include a heritable genetic modification.” Similar prohibitions exist in many other countries. There is a risk that if established bodies are not permitted to regulate this field, it might develop outside societal norms, leading to applications that are not scientifically valid or that violate core ethical principles. The committee defined a set of stringent criteria under which heritable germ line editing might be permissible if US restrictions are lifted
or if countries without legal prohibitions proceed with this line of research.."

While a noble sentiment, this report fails to acknowledge that the economic, military, and political advantage will drive the research despite ethical concerns,  as it drove cloning animals and eventually reportedly a human infant.  This procedure may be added to the list of proliferation of nuclear weapons, "hacking into vital infrastructure systems", "exploitation of outer space", and the other scientific boundaries of development which the earth as a unified political has so far been unable to join together to manage and regulate safely.

"Urging public education and engagement to assess and apply societal values to the risks and benefits of genome editing technologies disregards the powerful drive of money and power to overwhelm public boundaries. For somatic genome editing for treatment of disease, the Recombinant DNA Advisory Committee currently provides a forum for public engagement. While the report recommends against using somatic cell editing for enhancement at present, continued transparent and inclusive public engagement and education through multiple forums are needed to assess whether there is evolution of societal views on this issue over time. With respect to heritable germ line editing, broad participation and input by the public, along with ongoing reassessment of both health and societal benefits and risks, should be a precondition for moving any clinical trials forward."

The example of genetically modified foods is an example of the failure of public opinion as a regulatory process.  The development of these foods to enhance potability and ease production has potential value.  The complex risks in the genetic engagement of these altered species with non-altered crops remains unresearched because it has no financial value to the producing companies.  Their only concern is to prevent cross-pollination of their patented crops.  Concerns about the impact of consumption of these products is also speculative.  Short term trials do not indicate immediate negative effects of consumption,  but food is consumed for a lifetime, and so the long term potential of these modifications will only be understood by complex, expensive population studies which will be opposed and hampered whenever possible by the producers until the patents run out.

"The thrust of the report’s recommendations is to maximize the benefits to human health of any applications of genome editing. While heritable germ line editing is currently not feasible and probably will not be for several years, it is possible to foresee paths whereby it may become a realistic possibility. It is incumbent on society to take advantage of the opportunity to promote public engagement on the societal issues to inform regulatory decisions if and when that possibility becomes a reality. The committee’s recommendations on heritable germ line editing constitute a progression from the category of “never” to the category of “maybe, but only if …” but with no applications for enhancement—the goal would be healthy infants, not “designer babies.”"

It is hard to imagine a more naive, unfortunate assessment of the risks and complexities of this profound process, and that it's exploitation will be accelerated unless major world intervention at the level of managing biological or nuclear weapons is arranged.  (We are not so great at managing them either.)

THE REAL LESSON OF THE BEZOS AFFAIR

     The gossip du jour is the news coverage of Jeff Bezos' affair and the repercussions for his marriage etc.  The stories have focused on the role of AMI -National Enquirer as a gossip sheet,  its relationship to the current president,  and its long history of provocative journalism.  There is a whole saga here about how Americans love to hear about people behaving badly and feel morally superior that they did not "stoop" to behaviors they are constantly fantasizing about.  No matter that most of us are too busy trying to make a living to have time to try to live out our fantasies.  Yes, this publication is a garbage bag.  Yes, the stories are sometimes false.  And yes, there is a connection to the current president and his political allies.  But this is not the important story.
     Jeff Bezos is the richest man in the world,  and arguably the most successful in exploiting the internet for business.  His company has revolutionized the way retail is managed,  and he has been dramatically rewarded for being a patient determined and ruthless businessman.  By every current measure of economic and social success,  he is wildly successful.  But it is not enough.  Being rich.  Having a wife and family.  Having the money and time to do whatever he wants to do is not enough.  He needs something else.  He needs a new relationship.  This is not an unexpected turn of plot for a middle-aged American male with economic success.  Discarding a previous marriage and finding a new partner is a typical story for many men in his situation,  most notably the current president and many of his friends. Did Jeff Bezos choose wisely?
     The evidence is starting to say NO!  An affair with a younger,  still good looking,  news anchor (for a Fox station) who is also a pilot, and married to an executive in a talent agency, is an odd choice.  For a man with a keen ear for business,  didn't some of the details send up warning signals?  It now appears that her brother-manager is responsible for sending information to the Enquirer that would be embarrassing to him.  Wait a minute!  Her brother and manager?  Didn't she have to give him that information for him to use it?   Where does "kiss and tell" come into this?  It appears that Bezos' passion is being exploited for political and financial reasons,  and that he was unable to rise above his emotional response to be aware of it. 
     Does this matter?  Doesn't this prove that all middle aged men are fools if they are rich enough to be.  Maybe it does.  But it also shows something else.  Being the richest, most successful man in the world is not enough.  Whatever his wife and family meant to him,  Bezos appears to have needed to have his emotions/ego stroked in some other way.       
     The real question in this story is not "who is trying to extort him?"  or "what is the political  connection with the Kashoggi incident and Washington post".  The real question is why the richest most successful internet buinessman in the world is unable to find satisfaction in his life,  and makes a choice that is unlikely to make him any happier or more satisfied.
    

MONEY = INFORMATION

"Many consumers were caught entirely off guard when money disappeared."
     Though the date of this is still sometime in the future,  it is not far in the future.  The notion that money is an object or thing to be exchanged was long ago replaced, even in beginning economics classes, by the concept of "ability to acquire goods or services".  And this "ability" has a time dimension:  it is the ability to acquire goods or services in the next moment,  but more likely, days,  months,  or even years in the future.  What's the point of saving up for the future,  if the "ability to consume" is lost?
      How can "money" be a "concept"?  If an exchange for something,  shouldn't it be something itself?   And it is something:  information.   Even the simplest ancient coins carried a certain information about who had issued them,  and the value the objects were assigned.  But coins and paper bills have little to do with the contemporary experience of money.   Our money is represented in electronic form in data storage sites associated with financial institutions.  My net worth is what my accounts say it is in computer data,  ie, information.   When I use this "information" to acquire goods and services,  my information changes, as does the information record of the other party in the transaction.   I would have little concern if a robber went to a branch of my bank today and forcibly withdrew a large sum of currency.   It is doubtful that even a tiny bit of it would be related to my accounts.   But woe is me if the bank's storage systems are destroyed,  or worse,  hacked and the information changed.  It is crucial for me to keep a back up record ongoing of whatever the bank says my "information" is worth.  For that is the only way I can prove my "information value" if their computers fail!   Even a temporary failure to access the account can be very scary!   Though some of us still use currency and bills to carry out some minor transactions,   no major financial transactions are currently done in the US  except by information transfer,  whether that be via credit card,  written check,  direct bank wire  transfer,  etc. 
     But this is only part of the story of money as information.  The value of my "information" in the form of my country's valuation of "dollar-information" ( or "ruble-information")  has a relative value to the other information/currency of every other nation.   And currency traders attempt to take advantage of small shifts in the relative value in this market to expand the value of their "currency information" at the expense of other traders.   What causes the momentary changes in these values?  A complex system of exchange payments for trade across countries,  plus investors from outside the borders of the country,  etc,  etc.   These are all "information events".   And this information is calculated by the traders attempting to seek an advantage.
  If someone creates a new form of information-value("money") which claims to pay those who acquire it more in the future than it costs to acquire, it is worth "investing" in this growing information/value.  But how to know that the "investment" will grow in value over time?   The answer is, as many were sad to discover in the last year,  there is no way to know!  This is RISK:  the impossibility of predicting whether the value of a certain investment of "information" will grow over time.  So why not take out "insurance",  ie pay someone a small fee to insure that if my information/investment doesn't grow then they will make up the difference.  This is called options trading, and the other party must calculate the amount needed to cover this risk,  more information is needed, about unknown future events!   (Obviously AIG did not have a clue when they insured bunches of CDOs.) Financial markets have created a variety of ways of trying to "insure" this risk,  including options,  and CDO,  but the collapse of 2008 showed clearly that these are illusions.  They work for small risks but not for risk across the entire market.  Once one realizes that money is just a complex aggregation of information, then all efforts at maintaining or increasing its value do not involve storage in a safe vault!   The safety of banks, etc, is  a combination of data security management both personal and institutional and the ability to calculate and estimate the complex factors that go into the changing valuation of information/money.  The big buildings and vaults of the last century are irrelevant. 

   The only way to manage and expand the value is to manage the information associated with it better than anyone else. In a classical market model with perfect information for all traders this would not be possible.  So financial professionals try to give themselves a differential advantage in information,  which amounts to misrepresentation of the information they are selling to others, as when Goldman Sachs was shorting (betting against) the very investments they were encouraging others to buy!   Of course the financial industry will fight tooth and nail against any effort to regulate and control this manipulation of information.   Without it, there is no basis for significant relative gain of one player versus another.  But without this regulation,  it is impossible for the small investor,  or even the large pension fund investors,  to manage their risk.  The average investor is  limited in the ability to make these estimations and calculations by lack of information,  and so apparently are many professional investors.   The current financial mess was not caused by CDOs,  or Swaps or any other SPECIFIC investment/information device.   

It is the result of the identity  MONEY=INFORMATION.  

  

SOLVING THE IMMIGRATION ISSUE

Our country has struggled with the issue of immigration for decades.  Despite repeated efforts in congress no meaningful change has occurred.  The reasons for this are clear.  Globalization brought the United States into world competition with cheaper labor markets.  Allowing migration of low cost labor from central America provided a way to lower labor costs in the US.  This was not new,  migrant labor had been used for agriculture in the Western states since the turn of the 20th century,  but farm worker unionization in the 60s made much of the in country labor more expensive.  Business and agri-business owners (mostly Republicans) need cheap labor to control costs especially in unskilled jobs.  This labor force must not be able to vote or it will have political power, unionize and defeat it cost controls.  Those immigrants who can vote, tend to vote Democratic in expectation that their wage demands will be supported by a "labor friendly" party.  Republicans want cheap labor that can't vote.  They are always opposed to a "route to citizenship" because it means a route to voting.


Democrats want immigrants that can vote and that support them, but the workers cannot take jobs away from established Democratic voters, and must not reduce the level of wage and job protections that Democrats have championed over the years.  Democrats want immigrant voters who don't compete with their non-immigrant voters for jobs.  Democrats want a "route to citizenship" and voting,  but don't have a way to prevent these citizens from competing with "old economy" voters,  who are shifting Republican as a result.

In simplified form,  both parties want two classes of citizens:  cheap workers who can't vote,  and voters who can't work at competing jobs.  No wonder there is no solution for there is no intersection of these two groups!  Blue collar workers have shifted Republican on the promise that immigrant labor will be restricted and tariffs will protect American jobs.   This is a totally traditionally Democratic position now being proposed and implemented by Republicans!  And Democrats are supporting free trade to improve trade and citizenship for immigrants to get more voters.  Crazy!  You can't make this stuff up.

The US was built with slave and indentured servant labor.  A two class society with non-voting laborers and voting citizens would return US to this model.  It is the model of Rome and all civilizations that expand by exploiting part of their citizens in second class status.  This violates a real democracy,  but the US was not a "real democracy" until the 13th and 14th amendments after the civil war,  and may not be one yet. (Women certainly question this with the right to vote (19th amendment in 1920),  but a full rights amendment never granted.)

So there are two clear paths to solving the immigration issue:
1) tighten control of illegal immigration,  and allow all legal immigrants seeking opportunity or protection to enter the country and have a reasonable path to citizenship.
2) create a two tiered society in which immigrant labor is allowed to enter under limited controlled status to work but never given full citizenship.

Neither party supports either of these solutions!  Both argue for vague platitudes to avoid the undesirable impact of a real solution.

LEADERS AND LOVE

This quote is from Krishnamurti, a talk at Poona India 9/21/1958.(available on the Krishnamurti site):

...I say that a leader, a follower, a virtuous man does not know love. I say that to you. You who are leaders, you who are followers, who are struggling to be virtuous, I say you do not know love. Do not argue with me for a moment; do not say, `Prove it to me'. I will reason with you, show you, but first, please listen to what I have to say, without being defensive, aggressive, approving or denying. I say that a leader, a follower, or a man who is trying to be virtuous, such an individual does not know what love is... a leader who says, I know the way, I know all about life, I have experienced the ultimate Reality, I have the goods, obviously is very concerned about himself and his visions and about transmitting his visions to the poor listener; a leader wants to lead people to something which he thinks is right. So the leader, whether it is the political, the social, the religious leader or whether it is your wife or husband, such a one has no love. He may talk about love, he may offer to show you the way of love, he may do all the things that love is supposed to do, but the actual feeling of love is not there, - because he is a leader. If there is love you cease to be a leader, for love exercises no authority. And the same applies to the follower. The moment you follow, you are accepting authority, are you not? - the authority which gives you security, a safe corner in heaven or a safe corner in this world. When you follow, seeking security for yourself, your family, your race, your nation, that following indicates that you want to be safe, and a man who seeks safety knows no quality of love...

Given the recent US experience with leadership this observation takes on a significant meaning.  When the people are afraid, they want someone to take away the fear,  to reassure them.  In this context,  the people become passive and accepting.  They are used but not loved,  not respected as independent.  Only where discontent and challenge are allowed to express themselves and acknowledge the fear and confusion does freedom exist.  And only then can there be love.