All for One

According to those eminent philosophers, Three Dog Night, “One is the loneliest number.” Though lonely, it is the most basic number, and thus, the individual is the basic component of a group, a community, a state or a planet. There may be other people who resemble us physically, culturally and intellectually, but because each of us is unique, they do not match us exactly. There is evidence, in fact, that cloned creatures exhibit some behavioral differences from their sources. Each of us possesses a composite of attitudes, physical attributes, preferences, dreams and goals that segregate us from others who may be similar. While there may be compelling biological explanations for the variations among us, those unique elements are the underlying justification for engaged monotheism. Each individual has a personal relationship with the Creator who, in turn, acknowledges the individual as unique.


One does not need a theological justification for recognizing true individuality. Rational observation illuminates that people differ in many ways. Simple deductive reasoning illustrates that no two people are exactly alike. Some can protest that it is impossible to know everyone on the planet, ergo there may be a series of exact duplicates scattered around the planet. O.K., so my Somali twin and I share which attributes? Biological science reinforces uniqueness. Each of us has our own retinal scans, fingerprints and DNA (Tiger Woods is aware of this). Despite superficial similarities, each of us is a unique individual. So, we can conclude that individuals are unique through theological, biological and observational methods of inquiry.

In spite of our individuality, there times we choose to “run with the pack.” Although there may be some inherent biological impulse to associate with others, it still remains a choice. From an historical perspective, early settlers in the United States (or the colonies) joined together to “raise” barns and for defensive purposes. They formed churches and social groups to enhance their relationships with one another and to broaden the pool for potential mates. In every case the associations were voluntary although there was some ostracism when it was deemed that an individual was not contributing to the community good. The individual, however, remained as the primary component of the community, and many people on the frontier periodically pulled up roots and relocated further to the west to escape too much “crowding.”

If the individual is the basic unit from a theological, biological and observational perspective, why is it that current society appears to want to suppress individuality—at least in a political milieu? Aberrant and audacious behavior are tolerated or encouraged in social intercourse, dress and entertainment, but forceful individualism is often marginalized in the political realm. “Wacko’s, weirdo’s, loons” are just a few of the pejoratives that are used to characterize those who resent being forced to become one of “sheeple.” Although some elements of voluntary association still remain, an ever-growing government has preempted many aspects of everyday life there were once the province of individuals.

The state, if it has not been formed by conquest, is a voluntary organization. The United States of America was formed by the voluntary association of the thirteen original colonies. The Constitution is the fundamental document of that voluntary banding that defines and limits the power of the federal government relative to the individual states and their citizens. Today we discover a massive federal structure that overrides the separate states and ignores the individual. The ability to act individually is unfettered freedom. Any voluntary association will necessitate that an individual relinquish some element of freedom in order to become a member. In the simplest form, a member will sacrifice Tuesday evenings to attend a Lion’s Club meeting. Consistent failure to attend could result in the member’s name being removed from the roll. The government’s relationship with the individual is much more coercive that the Lion’s Club. Failure to comply with government’s myriad rules and regulations leads to sanctions and penalties. Individual freedom is relegated to those minor areas of life where the government has not yet expressed its will.

One of the great tragic consequences of the growth of the federal government is that the states and local entities have grown at nearly the same rate. Some of the growth is a result of federal mandates and revenue sharing schemes, and other areas of proliferation come about because of the misplaced sense of mandate that local politicians assume. Each new rule, law or regulation erodes the liberty of someone(s). Given the nature of government evolution in recent decades, it seems that many rugged individualists are forced to join together to stop the “Blob” from consuming them.

The next entry in this series will explore how and why individuals should band together to salvage their freedom.

Please comment to: cnpearl@woh.rr.com

Part I: Alone in the Crowd

Part II: All for One

Alone in the crowd.

The current debates surrounding various issues at all levels of government expose a fundamental tension inherent in self government. Who should reign supreme, the state (the collective) or the individual? The friction can be characterized in a number of ways, but one of the more common ones is “security versus freedom.” This is a false dichotomy because when one looses freedom, then security is at risk. In other words, when others make your choices for you, who will guarantee that those choices will be the optimal ones for you? As Ben Franklin stated,”Those who would sacrifice freedom for security deserve neither.”


In a political sense, the tug-of-war between the individual and society is fundamentally confined to democracies or republics, that is political systems that have a broad franchise with clear choices for voters. One-party states and tyrannies limit the individual and forces him or her into a collective mode. In an individually based structure, the citizen can choose to vote, act or think with or for the group. The collective or statist organization discourages or prohibits individual behavior. Thus, individually-centered communities can choose to become more collective or statist, but members of a tyrannical society cannot promote or encourage individualism without facing ostracism or bodily peril. To reiterate an old cliché: you can’t put the toothpaste back into the tube.

For a free people to ask the government to do more for them leads to an inevitable slide into tyranny. Each new role assumed by the state chips away at the bedrock of individual freedom. Again, an old cliché: the Golden Rule of business and government, he who has the gold…rules. They who have been ceded the power will wield it. After some time the state will not wait for the power to be given to it, it will assert its authority and assume the power. The nanny-state exercises power to protect the people from themselves, but as government continues to unabatedly become larger, the state begins to use power to protect itself from the people.

People who live in democratic societies may choose to become more collectivist for several reasons. A misplaced sense of compassion may lead them to conclude that “society” has an obligation to care for those in “need.” Human nature and our unique differences assure that the compassionate nirvana is never achieved. There are and always will be individuals whose circumstances place them out of the mainstream. The call for government remedies for an increasing number of perceived shortcomings leads to enhanced government power. Massive bureaucracies are developed to address the needs of the individuals, and after a time, it is discovered that some are “falling through the cracks.” New programs with greater government power are created to assure that all are treated fairly.

Political considerations are another motivation for increasing state influence. Often driven by ideology, statists believe that their way, their belief system, their method of governing is far superior to any alternative. Once they have their hands on the reins of power, they do not release them. They nurture the government leviathan so that they may exercise power and control. Dissent is either ridiculed or crushed.

Indifference is a major contributor to the loss of freedom and the growth of the state. Softball games, television shows, dining out, family vacations and a myriad other activities compete for thoughtful consideration. Fighting for individualism requires energy, passion and knowledge. It’s easier for people to leave the battle to others and kinda’ hope for a good outcome. Once individual rights have eroded to the tipping point, then the indifferent ones wring their hands and mutely cheer for the warriors who charge the barricades

Insolence is a big contributor to growth of government. Certain elites, either via education or wealth, determine that they alone are worthy for charting the course of the nation. The other citizens, they believe, lack the sophistication and knowledge to steer the state through perilous times. They implement programs that patronize the recipients, but none-the-less cause the government to grow as they make more people dependent on their largesse.

A final attribute that I will identify as a freedom-eroding, government bloating enabler is ignorance. Citizens don’t care, or they want more from government so they don’t have to do it themselves. They ignorantly sell themselves into serfdom because they believe they’re getting something for nothing from the government…or “I’ve paid taxes all my life, and they owe me this.” Some of them drool and grovel for government jobs because of minimal layoffs and rather slack work requirements.

Clearly, the descriptions that I have laid out above are not exclusive. Some big-state enhancers combine several of the categories. In my view, all are dangerous and toxic. In a future blog I will examine individualism and its motivations. Then, in a later one I will examine ways for freedom loving people to challenge the collective impulse.

Please feel free to comment. I cherish your feedback-positive or negative. If you prefer, you can email me at cnpearl@woh.rr.com