, , , , , ,

Trust: trust is often so easily taken for granted, and it must not be this way. Is trust something that must be earned and maintained? Trust should never be granted or gifted without first being tested; otherwise, we leave ourselves susceptible to trickery and falsity. Is trust a defining point in any relationship between two individuals? When trust is awarded to us, we must never abuse it. Trust is all about intuition, and it starts with the self. The more you trust your own intuition and ability, the easier it will be to discern who is worthy of your trust. Can it be said that “to be trusted is even more fulfilling than to be loved”? Are you worthy of trust from others? Do you contemplate that which you have trust in? How well do you differentiate between trust by truth and trust by reliance? When does trust transcend to belief, hope, or faith in your life? Are you fully apprised of the legalities of trust? What part does public trust play in your life? Consider the opposite and then determine your level or degree of trust. Do you have a suspicious nature? Are you apprehensive of others; events happening around you (in your world), and the reliance of mechanization? Where do you find (the ability to) trust? Within yourself? Do you need (a) motive to trust? Can trust be found (or be a part of) in negativity or the constants of life? How do you decide to trust someone or something?

So, who can you trust? We generally trust our family and close friends with tremendously sensitive information about ourselves and others that, if discovered by those outside our trust circles, would likely cause injury and embarrassment. We also put our trust in these very same people when they accept responsibility for completing some action for us, such as giving us a ride to the airport or house sitting for us when we are away. Yet, how does trust work when we are required to give it to those outside our circles and to people we do not know? When one thinks about it, trusting strangers to provide leadership through an elected representative government is an elemental part of a healthy democracy. The problem with blindly trusting our leaders is that we cannot depend on their motive and honesty as politicians. Add to this the partnering of greedy big business with some governments (see “Corporacracy”) and one begins to understand why many apathetic voters expect very little positive change. Regardless of whether it is the U.S. or some nation on the other side of the globe, the people must feel some trust in order to see their government as legitimate. Thailand is currently experiencing a trust issue with its leaders. According to ABC News, the Thai military has taken control of the country after 7 months of protests and violence. Apparently, the Thai people felt that Prime Minister Shinawatra was merely a puppet for the former PM, her billionaire brother. Protests and violence have continued because of the inability of the rival politicians to stabilize their nation. ABC News reports that Martial Law and a 10p.m. to 5 a.m. curfew have been implemented to stem the violence. They go on to explain that this “bloodless coup” is “the country’s 12th military takeover since 1932.” However, Thailand is not the only nation experiencing a trust issue. According to the Huffington Post, Congress has placed a limit on the ability of the National Security Agency (NSA) to interfere with the National Institute of Standards and Technology’s job of ensuring Internet encryption standards. Presumably, the NSA wants lower standards, thus allowing easier access to our data and personal electronic documents/property. In a letter to the House Science and Technology Committee, Rep. Grayson (D-Fla.) warned that “many businesses, from Facebook to Google, have lamented the NSA’s actions in the cyber world; and some, such as Lavabit, have consciously decided to shut their doors rather than continue to comply with the wishes of the NSA.” Certainly, the NSA is tasked with a difficult job. Protecting the United States from foreign and domestic terrorists is a daunting task that presumably will become more difficult before getting better. Yet, we must come to a consensus concerning where the line should be drawn. Is a freedom oriented society really free if no one has any privacy? And, if no one has any privacy, can people have any trust that their leaders are doing what is best for them? One absolute fact is that NSA spying may increase security but builds very little trust with people who are already questioning the U.S. government’s modern-day sincerity concerning “liberty and justice for all.” Trust, seemingly, must continuously be built and strengthened because it is also fragile.