I started listening to this book because of a podcast.  The presenter mentioned that to him our world has followed the path of Brave New World more than 1984.  I had this book on my list for a while, but this comment really intrigued me and I had an audio of the book so was listening to it as was doing some things around the house.  At first, I was not sure if I fully agree with the podcast presenter yet but can see his point.  Until the end of the book you hear so much about a society that focuses on technology advancements and pleasure seeking. I had to step back before I saw how the underlying idea was not the technology focus but the education focus.  To me both books teach about education and were we get out education.   The media plays a huge role in what we know and so does the education or training we receive.    My thought right now is that if our education is not toward scholarship and statesmanship than media can have a larger influence in our lives, so the podcast presenter point has a lot of merit.  

As I finished listening this, I decided to do a little research into the names of some of the characters because thought I did not recognize all the names I did recognize some and thought the author might be intentional about his choices.  I was browsing through SparkNotes and noticed something that really changed the book for me.  The section on the allusion was very impactful. I had picked up on some of them but there were others that I missed but the part that was impactful was the listing out of the quotes and their allusion to Shakespeare's works.  It was very interesting to see which plays were referenced and which plays were not.  I had just finished studying two of the plays mentioned.  One of the plays was my first deep dive into the storyline (Troilus and Cressida).  Because I understood that play better the allusions become very impactful.  Knowing and connecting the allusions brought so much more depth to the points.   In my mind it shifted the main take-aways for me from the focus to pleasure and technology to the role of education. At the end of this book there is a conversation about education (chapter 16) that really rang true to me. I had to re-read the last couple of chapters.  As I was thinking about the conversations in the book and Shakespeare's alliterations, I looked through a note I had for my next plan of study where I had posted this idea: Shakespeare focused on emotional success (or lack of it) while having faith in intuition and principles when compared to Aristotle whose faith was placed in evidence and experts while focusing on material success (I believe this idea came from Oliver DeMille but am not certain).  The idea had intrigued me, and I wanted to study it out some more.   After listening to this book, this idea does seem to line up with my take-aways from Brave New World.   The story becomes so much richer because of my experience with Shakespeare.  Had I not recognized that my education was missing so many things as I was raising my family I would never have read much Shakespeare.  I wanted better for my family which lead me on a new journey with Thomas Jefferson Education (tjed.org and LEMI).  Because of that journey a podcast presenter expressed an idea that I did not ignore and wanted to investigate which has me pondering yet again the importance of how of reading and discussing great books and ideas changes everything.

 To me, this is a fun book to read.  I loved learning more about the Lakota people and traditions.  Along with that, I was challenged to compare my ideas of what a leader looks like.   As I was reading the book, I could see the author’s idea of what a good leader looked like, then pause and reflect on what I would add or change.    I saw the power of having a position in society and being trained for that position through close mentorship.  Each person having a role in the community is the start of all leadership.  I learned how important it was to have others reflect back on what they see in us as a guide to helping us develop our confidence.  
Another principle the author shared was how important it was to pick the members of your team.  If we want to achieve a great goal we have to make sure we have the skills we need and also that we need to search for those that will support and help us achieve that great goal.  Support and willingness alone are not enough.  It is a start but not enough.  We need to learn to scout out or become acutely aware of those around us as we move forward on our paths.  The challenges (or enemies) along the way help us to increase our strength and attention.  If we look at the world through faulty ideas or incorrect ideas then it can lead to our failure. 
In judging other leaders, there are many challenges when we do not have a close community.  How can you tell if someone is a good leader? One of the things that we can look for is generosity.  You cannot fake it when a generous leader lives among you and with you.   In a large system, we fall back on the agendas and causes but a true leader will shine through as they are generous with all that they have.  There is in the true leader no attempt to increase fear or take from others in any way.
This book might be overlooked as a great leadership book because it does not feel very ‘meaty’ however I think it has some things to say to you if you take the time to reflect on the stories that were told and what they mean to you.

​In Book VII, Chapter 9 of Politics by Aristotle it states, “Now, since we are here speaking of the best form of government, i.e. that under which the state will be most happy (and happiness, as has been already said, cannot exist without virtue),….leisure is necessary both for the development of virtue and the performance of political duties.”
I have been pondering this idea for a while.  I have more leisure in my life than most of the people who have lived in the world.  I am not well off financially, but I do have many things that make my life much easier than other generations.  I have running water, electricity and many machines that make my life very comfortable.  I have appreciated this for many years.  I am SO BLESSED.    I am not well off financially compared to many, but I have not wondered about my next meal, or how to stay warm.   I have so much more leisure in my life than many others.  So, what have I done with that leisure?
When I was a young adult my focus was on getting a career.  I have worked since I was 14 years old to earn the money I wanted to live my way.  I was driven to work and go to school.  I burned both ends of the candle trying to get where I thought I would be successful.  During the process of this, I changed my mind about what was most important after having my first child.  I stopped focusing on how to get ahead in the world and focused on who to help my children get all that was good.  This next journey focusing on what was best for my children brought me to homeschooling.  During this process, I was introduced to the ideas of TJEd and Leadership Education.  My conversion was slow, but I shifted again toward the Leadership Education Model.  I started educating myself.  It has been wonderful.  I can say that since that for the most part I have been using my leisure time much better.  I look back and see how much I learned and am learning, and it has been a wonderful journey.   I still have many things still to do but I have enjoyed the journey.  There are times I have been discouraged and time wasting of course but overall, I still feel that I have done well with my leisure time. 
The part I keep tossing around in my head right now is the last part of the quote:  “and the performance of political duties.”  What will I choose to do?   I agree with many parts of Politics. Which leads me toward my next question:  What are my political duties?  Why?
I tried to ignore this but then I read in Chapter 15: “and those who cannot face danger like men are slaves to any invader.”   I don’t want to be a slave to any invader therefore I must make some decisions on how to act upon the knowledge I have.  

This book goes really well with the essay "The Law"  by Bastiat.  The author actually uses many quotes from the essay.  

One of the quotes that I like from the Law is:  "The law is collective force organized to oppose injustice." A very concise and clear definition of what law should be. When you take this definition to the introduction of the Declaration of Independence you have a clear idea of what injustice is.

There is also a clearer set of explanations of the 5 Laws of Decline that are in the book LeaderShift.   Along with this idea (laws of decline) is listed the 6 duties of society. 

As I ponder what my biggest take away is, I keep coming back to the idea that all good government MUST start in the home.   There are two basic ways to set up your family system - through persuasion or force.  Depending on your personal beliefs you will practice and teach either the ideas.    In our homes we learn to balance the ideas of chaos (no force) and coercion (absolute force).  The only way that we will be able to have a home of harmony and agreement is to education our self in many areas and then practice those ideas.  We need to know when and how to use persuasion and force correctly and in ways that promote our personal growth and freedoms along with how to keep harmony in the home.   Once we are able to establish harmony in our home we can then take those principles to society and help society to establish justice.   In our home we create rules or laws to help us establish safety and justice.  It is the same with society, laws are just a bit more complex since it involves more people and different beliefs (which is why written, clear laws are so important in societies).   For government to be truly justice it must begin in the home and then move out toward the community.

I have been reading John Locke's "Concerning Civil Government, 2nd Essay" and "A Letter Concerning Tolerance" this week. Very good reading. Here is just one of the many nuggets from "Concerning Civil Government", Chapter 9: the power of the society or legislative constituted by them can never be supposed to extend farther than the common good, but is obliged to secure every one's property... (#131)”.

More Thoughts on Locke’s Essays
As I was reading the Declaration of Independence again last night a section caused me to think and question what is meant. The sentence: That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to affect their Safety and Happiness".
In the past I read right on over that without once questioning it. Yesterday, I questioned what was the intent of safety? Today so many laws or orders have been given in the name of "safety" that I really struggle with the idea that we should have all this regulation to keep up "safe". What was the original intent? Can you really keep people safe? How? When have things gotten out of balance? The idea that comes to mind as I studied the wording of the Declaration is that Safety AND Happiness are to balance each other. This leads to another question: How is that balance measured and achieved?
 According to Ebenstein & Ebenstein (Great Political Thinkers), the Declaration is "pure Locke" and many of the main ideas of the Constitution and Declaration are based on Locke’s ideas. Therefore, I turned back to Locke in order to find his definition of safety. In Concerning Civil Government he writes: "...the end of law is not to abolish or restrain, but to preserve and enlarge freedom. For in all the states of created beings, capable of laws, where there is no law there is no freedom" (Chapter 6, #57). He continues: "The great and chief end, therefore, of men uniting into commonwealths, and putting themselves under government, is the preservation of their property; (Chapter 9 #124)......the power of the society or legislative constituted by them can never be supposed to extend farther than the common good, but is obliged to secure every one's property... (#131)”.
 Whenever Locke talks about safety and security in either "A Letter Concerning Toleration" or "Concerning Civil Government, Second Essay" it seems to be in connection with protecting the property and labors of man and to protect or deliver the people from "subjection of a foreign power" (Concerning Civil Government, Chapter 19 #217). In Locke’s writings he always talks about the limits that should be placed on the government. The idea that the law should be applied equally to all, that it must not be oppressive or based on personal whims, that the consent of the people need to be involved and that the legislature must not transfer its lawmaking power to anybody else. (Great Political Thinkers p. 432)
When you take all of this into account and refer back to the statement in the Declaration, I can see that government’s foundation should be for the Safety and Happiness of the people. I think without understanding the ideas that Locke taught and the extremely important idea of that he stated were necessary to protect the people these ideas can be taken and abused as they have been in recent years by our government officials. We the people have forgotten that we do not have to consent to all the government says. And that it is our job to make sure that the government does not overstep its powers. Many of the changes that have occurred in the last year have not been laws set up by the legislature but by the judicial and executive branches. And because we have not followed the pattern set up by our Founding Fathers both the safety and happiness of all people are out of balance.  The law is not being applied equally to all, is based on personal whims and is oppressive to some.  It is also not law; it is based on orders that have not been voted on.  Unfortunately that is because we the people have consented to follow past orders and judgments setting a precedent that said it was okay for other officials outside of our elective representatives to determine laws.  If we had all read John Locke’s writings in High School, would we have a different government then we do today?

As I read the Five Thousand Year Leap (FYL) the idea that I feel is the most important issue is principle #1 and 2.  You can’t have principle #2 without the idea that there is a natural law and a  divine law that we are obligated to understand and follow.  As I read further and further through the book, my thoughts kept returning to principle #2.  If the people are not a virtuous and morally strong people then freedom is not likely to exist. You can have good kings and bad kings.  You can have other government system that are good and bad.   But when you have a group of people that do not believe in the ideas of private and public virtue others will always take over the government. 
 
Quoting from FYL p. 235: "The centralization of political power always destroys liberty by removing the decision-making function from the people on the local level and transferring it to the officers of the central government.  This process gradually benumbs the spirit of "voluntarism" among the people, and they lose the will to solve their own problems.  They also cease to be involved in community affairs.  They seek the anonymity of oblivion in the seething crowds of the city and often degenerate into faceless automatons who have neither a voice nor a vote". 
 
I am guilty of that; I have left problems of the community for others to deal with.  Of course, I was not taught differently so I am not overly surprise that I am not involved more in the community.   But returning back to the idea of a virtuous and moral people.  The miraculous part of the American Government is that by setting up the government with many layers that check and balance each other within each layer and by each layer you can delay the collapse of the government longer.   When the spirit of public virtue is not as strong, when people are turning to the government to fix their problems, there are still checks in place to slow down the centralization of the power, so the people still have some liberties.  All of the principles after #1-2 are needed to deal with the conditions where the people are not strongly virtuous and moral. 
​
What an amazing document the Declaration and Constitution are when you take in light how long they have held together a people that has slowly been neglecting its responsibility toward themselves and their neighbors.

This is a quote that really struck me.
“They use your love of virtue as a hostage. They know that you’ll bear anything in order to work and produce, because you know that achievement is man’s highest moral purpose, that he can’t exist without it, and your love of virtue is your love of life.”—Francisco d’Anconia (p. 570)


This quote struck me because I had allowed a couple of people to do this to me.  I had let them use me.  I had wrongly thought that they were friends for years but then there was an incident that occurred in my life and was shocked to find out their true opinions of me were not of friends but instead to get something they wanted from me.  Seeing this idea expressed in this book in several different ways helped to understand that some people are just this way and it is not you personally it is because it is who they are.
​There are many ideas in this book that I really connected to.  I had experiences that I could relate to.  Though I do not agree with how this problem with solved, there are very many true ideas and principles.  There are also so many things are and have occurred in the world I live in.