When you unpack the state’s story, you may be lucky enough to realize it does not make sense…
The Paradox of Individualism vs. The State: Independence vs. Subjugation for the Collective
At its core, the paradox between individualism and the state is a battle between self-determination and collective coercion. It is the tension between the sovereignty of the individual and the demands of a centralized authority.
On one hand, individualism asserts that people have the right to make their own choices, govern themselves, and live free from coercion. On the other hand, the state operates on the principle that individuals must surrender some of their autonomy for the supposed “greater good” of the collective. The contradiction arises because the state, by its very nature, cannot exist without infringing on individual liberty—yet it justifies its existence as being “necessary” to maintain order, security, and societal function.
Let’s break it down further.
1. The Core Principles of Individualism
Individualism prioritizes personal autonomy, self-ownership, and voluntary association. It assumes that:
- The individual is the primary unit of society.
- Rights are inherent and do not come from the state.
- People should be free to live as they choose, so long as they do not harm others.
- Governance should be consensual, not coercive.
This leads to decentralized, voluntary societies where individuals engage in cooperation by choice rather than force.
Problems for the Collective
- Not everyone values independence. Some prefer security over freedom.
- Societies require some level of coordination (roads, defense, conflict resolution).
- Individualism can create tension in cases where collective action is seen as necessary (e.g., pandemics, wars).
2. The Core Principles of the State
The state operates on the opposite premise:
- The collective is the primary unit, not the individual.
- Rights are granted (and revoked) by the state.
- People must submit to authority for the sake of order and security.
- Governance is inherently coercive—if you disobey, there are consequences (fines, prison, death).
The state justifies its power by claiming:
- Without it, society would descend into chaos.
- Some freedoms must be restricted for the “greater good.”
- People owe allegiance to the system that provides stability.
Problems for the Individual
- The state is an involuntary system—you are born into it, and you cannot opt out.
- The collective is often used as an excuse for oppression (e.g., taxation, surveillance, conscription).
- The state grows over time, rarely reducing its power.
- The greater the collective’s power, the less individual autonomy remains.
3. The Paradox: Balancing Freedom with Structure
The fundamental question is: How much authority should the state have over the individual?
Too little, and society might struggle with disorder. Too much, and individual liberty disappears. The paradox is that the state is often seen as both the protector and the oppressor.
Examples of the paradox in action:
- Laws: Some laws protect individual rights (e.g., property rights), but others restrict personal freedoms (e.g., speech laws, mandatory taxation).
- Military & Police: They exist to protect citizens but can also be used to suppress them.
- Public Services: Welfare, healthcare, and infrastructure are justified as “helping the people,” but they require forced taxation to fund them.
In other words: The state claims to serve the individual, but it does so by subjugating the individual.
4. Resolving the Paradox: Voluntarism & Decentralization
The real issue isn’t whether society should have structure—it’s how much coercion should be allowed in that structure.
Possible solutions:
- Minarchism (Minimal State): The state only exists to enforce contracts, protect rights, and defend from external threats.
- Voluntarism (Anarcho-Capitalism): Governance is based entirely on voluntary interactions—people form communities and engage in contracts without a state.
- Decentralization: Instead of one massive centralized state, governance is local and responsive to individuals (e.g., city-states, independent regions like New Hampshire).
Why Decentralization Matters
The more local and voluntary a system is, the less oppressive it becomes. A small, local government is more accountable than a massive, federal one. Decentralization is the compromise between individualism and necessary social order.
5. The Final Question: Who Decides?
At the heart of the paradox is this question: Should individuals be allowed to opt out of the state?
- If YES, the state loses its coercive power and must rely on voluntary participation.
- If NO, then the state is just another form of forced servitude—one where the collective enslaves the individual for “the greater good.”
The truly self-determined individual must ask:
- Is my participation in this system voluntary or forced?
- Do I receive equal benefit for the freedoms I surrender?
- If I do not consent, do I have a peaceful way to exit?
The moment an individual cannot opt out, they are no longer free—they are subjects, not citizens.
Conclusion: The Case for Individual Sovereignty
The paradox of individualism vs. the state is a struggle for sovereignty. If individualism is to mean anything, it must include the right to exit a system that no longer serves you.
The more power the state has, the less self-determination the individual retains. Therefore, the only moral path forward is to shrink the state and maximize voluntary interactions.
New Hampshire’s Live Free or Die ethos is one of the last holdouts of this ideal. The goal should not be to eliminate all structure, but to ensure that structure is always voluntary, localized, and accountable—never imposed at gunpoint “for the greater good.”
Would you agree with this resolution? Or do you think some level of subjugation is “necessary” for society?
BONUS CONTENT: What is the “greater good”?
What Is the “Greater Good”?
The “greater good” is a moral and philosophical concept used to justify actions, policies, or sacrifices that are believed to benefit society as a whole—even if they come at the expense of individual rights, freedoms, or preferences. It is often invoked by governments, institutions, and ideologues to rationalize coercion, centralization, and collective decision-making.
But here’s the problem: who defines the greater good? And at what cost?
1. The Utilitarian Justification: Majority Over Minority
The idea of the “greater good” is rooted in utilitarianism, a philosophy that argues that the morally right action is the one that maximizes happiness or well-being for the greatest number of people. This leads to decisions based on outcomes, rather than principles or individual rights.
Examples of Utilitarianism in Action:
- Public Health Policies: Lockdowns, vaccine mandates, and mask mandates are justified by saying they protect society, even if they infringe on individual liberties.
- Eminent Domain: Governments seize private property to build infrastructure, claiming that the economic benefit to society outweighs the loss to individuals.
- War & Conscription: Sending young men to die in war is justified as necessary for national security or economic stability.
- Taxation & Welfare: Wealth redistribution is justified by saying that taking from the rich to help the poor leads to better overall societal outcomes.
In all these cases, the individual is sacrificed for the collective. The implicit message is: You don’t matter as much as “society.”
2. The Dangers of the “Greater Good” Narrative
A. Who Decides What the Greater Good Is?
- Politicians? Bureaucrats? Media? Tech companies?
- History shows that elites define the greater good in ways that benefit themselves—not the people they claim to serve.
- The “greater good” has been used to justify tyranny, genocide, censorship, and war.
Example:
- Soviet Communism: The mass starvation of millions (Holodomor) was justified as necessary for industrial progress.
- Nazi Germany: The Holocaust was rationalized as protecting society from “undesirable” elements.
- American War on Terror: Mass surveillance and indefinite detention were justified as necessary for security.
Whenever the state defines the greater good, individual rights become irrelevant.
B. The Greater Good as a Tool for Control
The “greater good” is often a Trojan horse for authoritarianism. Governments and corporations use it to:
- Expand their power.
- Justify coercion and violence.
- Suppress dissent (e.g., “If you question this, you’re a threat to society”).
- Normalize mass compliance and collective obedience.
Example: During COVID-19, anyone questioning lockdowns, mandates, or censorship was labeled “selfish” or a “threat to public health.” The greater good became a tool for suppressing personal autonomy.
C. The “Greater Good” Can Be a Moving Target
What is considered the greater good today may not be tomorrow.
- Prohibition (1920s): Alcohol was banned for the “greater good.” Then it wasn’t.
- Iraq War (2000s): The war was justified by claims of WMDs. Later, it was admitted they didn’t exist.
- Censorship of Science: Galileo was persecuted for contradicting the Church’s idea of the “greater good.” Later, his ideas became mainstream.
The truth does not change just because the majority believes something is “good.”
3. The Alternative: The Individual as the True Greater Good
Instead of sacrificing individuals for an abstract collective, we must recognize that a free, self-determined individual is the highest societal good.
A Society Built on Individual Sovereignty:
- Protects voluntary cooperation instead of forced compliance.
- Respects property rights rather than redistributing wealth through coercion.
- Allows competing ideas instead of enforced ideological conformity.
- Prioritizes bottom-up solutions instead of top-down authoritarian mandates.
A free society creates the true greater good: one where each person can pursue their own happiness, without being sacrificed for others.
Conclusion: The “Greater Good” is a Dangerous Myth
The moment a government, politician, or movement tells you that you must give up your rights for the greater good, you should be suspicious. More often than not, this argument is a mask for power consolidation, control, and coercion.
The real greater good is voluntary association, self-ownership, and a society where individuals are free to live as they choose—without being sacrificed on the altar of collectivism.
Would you agree? Or do you think some sacrifices for the greater good are justified?
If an individual lacks critical thinking skills, they are highly susceptible to manipulation, misinformation, and emotional reasoning. Without the ability to analyze, question, and assess information logically, they become passive consumers of narratives rather than independent thinkers. Here’s what this looks like in practice:
Signs of a Lack of Critical Thinking Skills
- Blind Acceptance of Authority
- Believes something is true simply because an authority figure or institution says so.
- Does not question government policies, mainstream media, or experts.
- Emotional Reactivity Over Rational Analysis
- Responds to news or events with knee-jerk emotional reactions (anger, fear, outrage) instead of rational evaluation.
- Easily manipulated by propaganda that exploits emotions like fear or guilt.
- Black-and-White Thinking (False Dichotomies)
- Sees the world in extremes: good vs. evil, left vs. right, pro- vs. anti-.
- Cannot entertain nuance or gray areas in arguments.
- Inability to Detect Logical Fallacies
- Accepts weak arguments full of logical errors without questioning them.
- Easily deceived by ad hominem attacks, straw man arguments, and appeals to emotion.
- Groupthink & Herd Mentality
- Goes along with popular opinion without questioning its validity.
- Believes something is true just because “everyone agrees” (bandwagon effect).
- Fears social ostracism for holding different views.
- Reliance on Single-Source Information
- Only gets news from one mainstream media source or social media echo chambers.
- Does not seek out alternative viewpoints or independent analysis.
- Inability to Form Independent Opinions
- Repeats slogans and talking points without deep understanding.
- Cannot articulate their own reasoning when challenged.
- Cognitive Dissonance & Mental Blocks
- Ignores contradictory evidence that challenges their existing beliefs.
- Feels discomfort when presented with facts that contradict their worldview.
- Passive Consumer of Information
- Accepts news, political claims, and social narratives without verifying sources.
- Does not ask “Who benefits from me believing this?”
- Inability to Predict Consequences of Actions
- Fails to think critically about long-term effects of policies or decisions.
- Supports policies or movements based on good intentions rather than real-world consequences.
Why This Matters
Without critical thinking, individuals:
- Are easily controlled by propaganda.
- Fall into ideological traps.
- Lack self-determination and true independence.
- Make poor personal and political decisions.
- Are more likely to support authoritarianism out of fear or ignorance.
Critical thinking is not just an intellectual exercise—it is a form of mental sovereignty that protects individuals from deception and ensures they live as free, rational beings.
Does this list resonate with you? Would you like to explore how to develop critical thinking skills in those who lack them?
Great topic! Self-determination is at the core of both personal empowerment and political sovereignty. Let’s break it down.
Individual Self-Determination
At its most fundamental level, self-determination is about agency—the ability to make choices that shape your own destiny. It’s the foundation of self-ownership, autonomy, and personal responsibility. When you take control of your own mind, body, and soul (to borrow from The Good Girl’s Guide to Self-Ownership structure), you stop outsourcing decisions about your life to others—whether that’s societal expectations, government mandates, or even subconscious fears.
Key Aspects of Individual Self-Determination:
- Autonomy: Making choices based on your own values rather than external coercion.
- Self-Ownership: The idea that you are in charge of your body, mind, and labor.
- Accountability: Understanding that with freedom comes responsibility for outcomes.
- Resilience: The ability to adapt and overcome challenges, rather than waiting for external saviors.
- Mindset & Identity: Recognizing that you are the sovereign of your own existence.
A self-determined individual asks: What do I want? How do I build the skills, habits, and mindset to get there? How do I remove dependencies that make me weak?
This is why concepts like financial independence, health sovereignty, and intellectual self-defense (questioning narratives) are so crucial. They all contribute to an individual’s ability to make free, informed choices.
Political & State Self-Determination
Zooming out, self-determination applies to nations, communities, and political entities. The right of a people to determine their own political status and govern themselves is an ancient and revolutionary idea. It’s the backbone of revolutions, secessions, and movements for sovereignty.
Key Aspects of State-Level Self-Determination:
- Decentralization: Smaller, more accountable governance structures are better at reflecting the will of the people.
- Independence Movements: From the American Revolution to Brexit to NHExit, self-determination movements arise when people feel disconnected from or oppressed by a ruling body.
- Cultural Identity & Governance: A group of people should have the ability to organize their governance in a way that reflects their values and way of life.
- Consent of the Governed: If a government no longer serves the people’s interests, they should have the right to alter or abolish it.
A self-determined state asks: Do our people want to be governed by this system? Is the current structure serving us, or do we need to change it? Who benefits from our subservience?
This is why New Hampshire’s Live Free or Die ethos, and the NHExit movement, resonate deeply with ideas of self-determination. The same logic that applies to an individual—removing dependencies, asserting autonomy, taking control of one’s future—applies to a state. Just as a person must decide whether to remain in a toxic relationship or oppressive job, a state must decide whether it remains shackled to a system that no longer serves it.
The Parallels Between Individual & State-Level Self-Determination
- Sovereignty → Just as you are the sovereign of your life, a state should have sovereignty over its governance.
- Accountability → Just as you must take responsibility for your choices, a community must own the outcomes of its policies.
- Freedom of Association → Just as individuals should have the right to leave toxic relationships, states should have the right to exit oppressive unions.
- Personal Responsibility & Localism → The less dependent you are on a centralized authority, the more power you have over your future.
Ultimately, both forms of self-determination reject the idea of being ruled by unaccountable forces—whether that’s an overreaching government or a toxic belief system that keeps you in a mental prison.
What aspect of self-determination do you want to explore further? Individual strategies? NHExit? Global self-determination movements?
Intellectual Self-Defense: Protecting Your Mind from Propaganda
Intellectual self-defense is the ability to critically analyze, question, and resist manipulation from propaganda, misinformation, and coercive narratives. Just as self-defense in a physical sense involves learning how to protect yourself from threats, intellectual self-defense equips you with the tools to recognize and counter deceptive rhetoric, emotional manipulation, and outright lies.
This concept is crucial in an era where governments, corporations, and ideological movements seek to control narratives for power and profit. If you don’t actively defend your mind, someone else will occupy it.
The Tactics of Propaganda
To defend yourself, you must first understand how propaganda works. Here are some of the most common tactics used to manipulate public perception:
- Repetition & Manufactured Consensus – The “Big Lie” strategy: Repeat something often enough, and people start to believe it’s true (e.g., “Safe and effective,” “Trust the experts”).
- Appeal to Authority – Instead of relying on logic or evidence, propaganda invokes “trusted” institutions (e.g., “The government says…” or “The science is settled”).
- Fear & Crisis Exploitation – People are easier to manipulate when afraid (e.g., pandemics, wars, climate catastrophism).
- Bandwagon Effect – Creating social pressure so that dissenters feel isolated or demonized (e.g., “Everyone agrees…”).
- Censorship & Controlled Narratives – Silencing alternative views so that people only hear one side of the story.
- False Dichotomies – Making it seem like there are only two choices when other possibilities exist (e.g., “You either support us or you’re a threat to democracy”).
- Straw Man Arguments – Misrepresenting an opponent’s view to make it easier to attack.
- Emotional Manipulation – Encouraging people to react emotionally rather than think rationally (e.g., outrage, guilt, shame).
Understanding these tactics makes it much easier to spot them in real-time.
How to Build Intellectual Self-Defense
To resist propaganda, you need both mental discipline and strong habits of information consumption. Here are the key methods:
1. Train Yourself to Ask: “Who Benefits?”
Whenever you hear a claim, ask:
- Who benefits from me believing this?
- Is this designed to control me or empower me?
- What incentives exist for pushing this narrative?
This simple filter can expose a lot of hidden agendas.
2. Diversify Your Information Sources
If you only get news from one side (whether corporate media or independent outlets), you are in an echo chamber. Read multiple perspectives, including those you disagree with, to develop a fuller picture.
3. Master Logical Fallacies
Most propaganda relies on logical fallacies—faulty reasoning that seems convincing at first glance. Learn to recognize these:
- Ad hominem (attacking the person instead of the argument)
- Appeal to emotion (bypassing logic with fear or guilt)
- Hasty generalization (drawing conclusions from insufficient evidence)
- False cause (assuming correlation equals causation)
Once you spot these, you’ll see how weak most mainstream narratives actually are.
4. Develop Pattern Recognition
Propaganda operates in predictable cycles. The formula is usually:
- Create a crisis (real or exaggerated).
- Push a predetermined solution (usually more government power).
- Demonize dissenters (portraying them as dangerous or irrational).
- Memory-hole the past (shifting narratives once the previous claims are disproven).
If you recognize the pattern, you won’t fall for the next manufactured crisis.
5. Strengthen Your Critical Thinking with the Socratic Method
The Socratic Method is a tool to interrogate ideas by asking deeper questions:
- What is the evidence?
- Are there alternative explanations?
- What assumptions are being made?
- Is this logically consistent?
By engaging in this type of thinking, you naturally develop resistance to weak or manipulative arguments.
6. Resist Emotional Manipulation
Propaganda thrives on emotional responses—fear, outrage, guilt, tribalism. When you feel a strong emotional reaction to a piece of news, STOP. Ask yourself:
- Am I being manipulated?
- What would a calm, rational assessment look like?
- Would I believe this if the roles were reversed?
Train yourself to respond with curiosity rather than emotion.
7. Cultivate Skepticism Toward Institutions
Institutions operate based on incentives, not morality. Government agencies, legacy media, and academia are often corrupted by power and money. A healthy mindset is:
- Assume deception until proven otherwise.
- Require strong, verifiable evidence before believing a claim.
- Recognize historical patterns of institutional abuse.
Being skeptical doesn’t mean being paranoid—it means understanding that power structures are usually self-serving.
8. Guard Against Social Pressure
Propaganda relies on making dissent socially unacceptable. If you fear being labeled (“conspiracy theorist,” “science denier,” etc.), you are easier to control. Develop the mental toughness to hold unpopular views if they are logically sound.
Ask yourself: Would I have stood against the mainstream opinion in history’s great moral battles? (e.g., abolition, free speech, resisting authoritarianism).
9. Strengthen Your Ability to Debate
If you can articulate and defend your views under scrutiny, you are far less likely to be manipulated. Practice debating:
- Steelman opposing views (present them as strongly as possible).
- Use logic, not emotion.
- Stay calm—propagandists want to provoke irrational responses.
The Ultimate Goal: Mental Sovereignty
Intellectual self-defense is ultimately about sovereignty—making up your own mind instead of being controlled. It aligns directly with both personal self-determination (owning your thoughts and beliefs) and political self-determination (ensuring that governance reflects the will of the people).
By training yourself in these skills, you become immune to manipulation. You become what governments, corporations, and ideological zealots fear most: a free thinker.
Does any of this resonate with you? Want to explore specific examples of how intellectual self-defense can be applied?
My Magic 8-ball says, Outlook Not So Good. This week, I give a run down of past attempts to legalize cannabis in NH, and explain what’s up with HB 75, a decriminalization bill.
My mother died today. Madalein Gericke was one of a kind. An incredible storyteller with a wicked sense of humor, she was a writer and artist who continued to create until close to the end.
Ma had many strange stories and sayings, and would sometimes dramatically call on the Oracle of Delphi. She taught me about “woman’s lib” and how to never take crap from anyone, including any man. She taught how me to drive, repeatedly yelling, “It’s just like your ABCs! Accelerator! Brake! Clutch!” and “FFS, whatever you are about to do, do it s-l-o-w-l-y!!!” Ma could swear like a sailor, party like a rock star, and played Squash with the boys until one broke her nose and cheekbone with a wild, offside backhand.
“Mind over matter, mind over matter,” was another one of her favorite sayings, a mantra that has always been a driving force in my own life.
After Ma had a debilitating stroke at the age of 40, she had to teach herself to walk and talk again. She has to teach herself to write, draw, and paint with her left hand, and she never played Rachmaninoff again. She walked a bit off-kilter, and as she aged, everything started to curl and tighten, her right hand becoming a claw.
She would often make jokes about her “handicap,”–treating it like a golf handicap–including the fact that even though she now predominately used her left hand, she did not trust this hand enough to put on her eyeliner, so she continued to draw kohl rings around her eyes with her right hand, which she now, under any other circumstances, called “El Stupido”… This using the “dumb hand” to draw around her eyes is somehow one of the most “mind over matter” things I can fathom.
Ma was a practical jokester, with a bit of a mean streak. Once, in Mafikeng, she took a joint bone from an off-cut of meat and pretended her eye had fallen out, running through the house with one eye covered with the “eyeball” joint bone on the palm of her other hand, yelling, “My eye fell out, oh my God, my eye fell out!” My sister almost fainted. Another time, when I was complaining about a sore finger–likely from an impossible amount of sports–she told me to put it on the table “so I can fix it for you.” Being the entirely trusting daughter I was, I laid it on the corner of the table after which Ma promptly and unabashedly thumped my finger hard with her flat hand and said, “There! I fixed it for you.” This became a standing joke in our family… whenever anyone complained about anything, the rest of the family would yell: “PUT IT ON THE TABLE,” we’d chant, “AND I’LL FIX IT FOR YOU!”
As a diplomat’s wife, she was an accomplished host, cook, and entertainer. She fondly told stories of attending art school in New York in the 70s, how she once lost me in Bloomingdales, how she gave my sister, still a toddler, red wine in France because it was so cold it was the only thing she could think to warm her. In Stockholm, she wrote the local International Women’s Club’s newsletter, taking pride in cutting out the articles and doing the layout deep into the night until it was just right. She was an award-winning radio drama playwright. In Mafikeng, she ran her own after-school art school on the stoep out back, where she would make the students identify the big forms and shapes–“always see the Big Picture first!”–before drawing what we saw. She would meticulously plan each still life, picking the bowls, the fruits, the tea cups, the table clothes, even where in the space she would stage everything for optimal lighting.
She took us to so many bookstores, libraries, and museums, and she taught me to look at the world first BIG PICTURE, then in great detail, and for that I will be eternally grateful.
She also had an uncanny knack for doing math in her head, meaning that she could calculate an exchange rate in any country we were visiting faster than the merchants with their calculators.
Ma worked for the Minister of Foreign Affairs as a press liaison in the 80s, sometimes flying to secret locations on secret missions. Pik Botha was on speed dial. I remember her sitting on the stool in the inside garden of the house in Colbyn, lighting cigarettes, throwing her head back, laughing on the phone. But also, always, a heightened sense of stress when the phone rang at strange times. It never bode well. Ma also reviewed and helped draft all Pa’s speeches and important letters. She was his true partner and confidante until that fateful night when her “terrible headache” was much more than a “terrible headache.”
After her stroke, she would tell us favorably of her near death experience, of seeing a tunnel and being called to God. I hope she had the same experience today.
Ma died with Pa by her side, with my sister Lizette and her husband Louis Cloete there. Lizette made sure I could speak to her to say goodbye as well. I don’t know if she heard me, but I do know she knew I loved her and I am grateful I got a last chance to tell her so. Update, my sister told be afterwards that one of her friends was there with them all and held Ma’s feet at the end. I don’t know why, but I find this so reassuring. I want someone holding my feet when I die!
R.I.P. Madalein Gericke. You were the best mommy I ever had.
Thank you to the outpouring of condolences. Decent people know you extend your sympathies always.