“Who claims that love is a choice, other than those most likely to find betrayal of trust a fitting design over the area where one must be responsible? Choice has little to do with responsibility. When we are trusted, we are so because of our duties. Of duties that renounce the freedoms of childhood we vainly believe can be eternal.”– Modern Romanticism
As a child, we once had a family to care for us. When we grow up, we find that we must take care of other people we deem to be held dear in our hearts. Where does this phrase “remain forever young” originate from? More important, what does it reference? To be universal on the latter, it should reference “how to forever depend” or “how to never be responsible enough to claim one no longer has a choice”. When we are children, or have childish mindsets, or are simply immature enough to not understand the importance behind dutifulness, we wish for infinite choice. We call this “diversity”, though only by how it separates ourselves from those who did trust us, of those who believed us better undertakers to their care.
Between family and work, there is only a “choice” for one of these. It is the latter. It is, because that’s a place where a person inevitably desires a vain gift for freedom. Such people believe, through their emancipation, that work is more attractive than family for the reason of its realm being a “gift”. Such a perceived gift, being where one can “have more”, outside of the satisfaction that love would eternally bring. We can be eternally satisfied, with love. Or, we can hold the same mindset as a cheating husband, who forsakes his wife to have another woman of more attractive assets.
We either have a choice, or we do not.
We either have our freedom, or we do not have it and thus take to the dutifulness of being responsible.
However, how do we properly gain freedom? The answer is, we must earn it. The same way a slave earns their own life back, through knowing the meaning behind freedom. Though, such “meaning” dissipates over time, when future generations after that slave’s own time forget that rights and freedoms are meant to be earned. Those future generations begin to believe that freedom is a gift, as they compare this with life.
Life is not ever free, until such freedom is earned. To compare this to a worker who earns their rest or their time to head home, is the same.
Choice is not ever linked with dutifulness. A worker chooses their labor, though earns the time for what they yearn for most, being their home and family. For it was not the work that related so much to dutifulness, as much as the reminder to the laborer of what their purpose is for working. As another example, why does the soldier fight? It is to simply show off, or is in the remembrance of what they’re fighting for?
If a soldier wishes to show off their skills of combat to the rest, then they’ve instantly forgotten the tactics for which guarantee the lot’s own survival. This would be a person who yearns for choice, though out of selfishness has forgotten about loyalty. And, when a soldier no longer understands who trusted him, he gains the pitiful freedom of being on his own, though never earned it.
We betray, when we yearn for a choice, beyond the understanding that we must earn it, not simply be gifted it by law. It is an innate human comprehension to have something so precious as freedom, and only ever deemed as such because it is in relation to life. Is life not precious to us? The same as anything else viewed in the same lens, is it ever permanent? Or, are all things we find to be “precious” what we protect, even with our own lives?
A life can be protected with a life. Freedom can be protected with the forfeiture of another’s. Were this to happen between perhaps two friends, there has been trust built enough so that vulnerability can be the protection over what is seen, through love, as too precious to disappear.
As with freedom, as with family or love, as with the things we can retreat to, there are no choices to them. We merely earn them, because just like a paycheck to a worker, it was not stolen. As it is, life cannot be “stolen”, unless it is “chosen” to be killed.