A Nation of Dependence
October 3, 2011 § Leave a comment
The vast land that we now refer to as the United States of America was built on the notion of “independence”. Independence from the British, independence from a mercantile system, and most importantly, independence from an overbearing leviathan state. This is evidenced just by looking around us– hell, I grew up nearby a town called “Independence, Ohio”. Needless to say, the idea of Independence is essential to American society, and I’m convinced that the spirit of Independence still lives on in the American soul.
Wikipedia defines Independence as follows:
The key here, is the term self-government, which according to Wikipedia
…can be used to describe a people or group being able to exercise all of the necessary functions of power without intervention from any authority which they cannot themselves alter.
Of course, there is no better way to “alter” an authority than to refuse it’s orders. Or put differently, having the ability to opt-out of a body of authority, is the key to true independence in it’s purest form. The authority which should be obeyed, is that of the free market.
Wikipedia makes a distinction between “Independence” and “Revolution” as follows.
Attainment of independence should not be confused with revolution, which typically refers to the violent overthrow of a ruling authority. While some revolutions seek and achieve national independence, others aim only to redistribute power — with or without an element of emancipation, such as in democratization — within a state, which as such may remain unaltered. Furthermore, some countries were granted independence without any revolutionary acts. The Russian October Revolution, for example, was not intended to seek national independence; the United States Revolutionary War, however, was.
Although their point is valid, I think further distinction needs to be made. Both Wikipedia articles for the terms “Revolution” and “Independence” mainly work around the assumption that such movements only occur within the framework of the state. This isn’t necessarily always the case, at least theoretically. Furthermore, there should be some clarification to the statement that revolutions are typically violent. Although this may be the typical case, it should be emphasized that any worthy revolution will be one of ideas– not guns or violence. Admittedly, those same ideas may lead to the initiation of violence by those who lose power when the people become enlightened. But just because temporary violence may be the end result of a revolution, it does not mean that violence should be the means of any revolution.
Most importantly, revolution in this context is merely a means by which to gain independence. Independence, that is, from a central body of force and coercion. The key then becomes to facilitate such a revolution by further spreading an idea throughout society. If a critical mass of emboldened, enlightened individuals can be reached, then the revolution stands a very good chance of at the very least, shifting the public discussion in their direction. Thanks to the work of Ron Paul, and the people he has inspired, I fully believe that we have reached that critical mass in the United States today.
God bless. Please comment if you enjoyed(or we disgusted with) this post. 😉