The Individualistic Understanding of Government


(All men are freemen or slaves)


"The mania for giving the Government power to meddle with the private affairs of cities or citizens is likely to cause endless trouble . . . and there is great danger that our people will lose our independence of thought and action . . . and sink into the helplessness of [one] who expects his government to feed him when hungry, clothe him when naked, to prescribe when his child may be born and when he may die, and, 'in fine', to regulate every act of humanity from the cradle to the tomb, including the manner in which he may seek future admission to paradise."  -- Mark Twain, Samuel Langhorne Clemens


     Unfortunately, the present day entity, separate from the people and acting only for the benefit of the selfish cells who compose it, wrongly entitled 'government', is overly complex and exercises too much power and control over the individual for selfish gain instead of truly governing; which is a word whose origin is kubernan (Greek) and gubernare (Latin) both of which mean "to steer".  Normally this steering would be implied to the benefit of the masses instead of steering to the benefit of the "elite" few as in today's society.  Over time many more domineering variations to the word appeared such as, "to guide or direct" "to regulate" "to exercise authority over" " to control the actions or behavior of" "to keep under control, restrain" etc.  This is where the fine line of Individualism is seen.  All theses definitions are correct if they apply to One individual wielding power over oneself to direct and regulate one's own actions and steer one's life in such a way as to evolve in harmony with The Creation.  The instant another is put into the equation the word is no longer government, it is simply slavery.  No one should wield power over anyone but one's self.  No matter how you look at it, how you justify it, what you call it, or to what degree, when one being controls another being the one being controlled is a subject, a servant, a slave.  

     Presently, the American society is a direct contradiction to the authority invested in  "We the people" by the United States Constitution.   The authority has gone instead to the government which is now a separate entity from "the people" and controls them as a dictator.  The majority is not truly involved in decision making, for they have no say on the individual policies, and often they do not even hear the details of them.   The only say they have is to who gets into office, and their only choices are between the lesser of the liars, which are mostly profit minded whores with no concern for the Union or the people they are supposed to represent.  The government has successfully become a kleptocracy, with no representative effectively representing anyone unless given "incentive" of some nature.  All positions are bought and paid for.  The only consensus that is heard is the one who spoke with the most financial influence.  How many of these supposed representatives have not put into action things which they said they would have?  Hired staff to enforce their own personal goals, instead of the goals of the people.  How many laws and policies were never brought into public light until after they were passed?  The very forces which control the masses are these laws and policies seldom brought to public attention. The very word policy comes from the Latin word "apodixa" which means to display or make known! 

     The ability to choose the individual in office yet not have that person strictly legally bound to the obligations of those they represent is completely pointless.  The effect is a public who believes that they are contributing and in control when they are completely in the dark and powerless, just as is the puppet figure who supposedly represents them is to corporate forces.  Furthermore, no matter who wins the vote, there is always complaining of some portion of the masses about the ruler. If the "ruler" is taken out of the picture, the burden falls upon the individual, where it has always belonged, who then can complain not, except that the burden of one's own fate be upon him.

    Such is the argument about voting and how valuable the present vote is.  First, limited candidates limits the choice of rule, thus limits choice itself.  The campaign for any position is such an expense that it immediately puts that capability out of the reach of the common man, limiting equality.  The few candidates being voted for only mention a small number of policies while campaigning, and if elected may not even hold their word on those.  The myriad of other unmentioned policies are their real work which the people should be informed of but which rarely come into public light, mocking representation.  Also it is not the candidate that has power, the candidate once elected is moved by "campaign contributions" and "donations" by huge need suppliers engrained into the system.  It is they who are the true shapers of the policies to their own selfish ends, making the vote even more meaningless.   All these candidates are soon allied with them or heavily invested with them, if not, they either soon will be, else they will be demonized in the public eye.  No truly free thinker is allowed to get too far in present day political affairs without pledging allegiance to their empire, lest they be "neutralized".    For those who deny this power, know that of the Earth's 100 most wealthy entities, 51 of them are corporations, while the other forty-nine are merely countries.  Lastly, the remaining worth of the vote is snuffed out by the Electoral College who is supposed to represent the majority's will but does not have to.   One does not vote for the president, one votes for 538 people who will make that decision for you.  In this world it is far too easy to influence that small amount of people.  The Electoral College was erected in a time when the common man was not sufficiently educated.  It is a thing of the past in the Individualistic society where knowledge and education are their crown jewels and the people make decisions for themselves, as is their authority to do so.

     The individuals comprising the said government, especially in the larger more powerful departments, are far removed from the income level and stresses of the masses; therefore they have no affinity towards the wants, needs, problems and concerns of this vast majority.  The Members of the House of Representatives and the Senate received a salary of $165,200 per year; Congressional leaders receive $183,500, Speaker of the House $212,100 per year.  The average American salary is approximately $37,000, thus the lowest paid congressman makes about 4.5 times more than the average man.   Furthermore, they have become involved in, and understand corrupt systems directly proportionate to how far they have progressed within government and are now allied with corporate powers and benefiting therefrom.  Therefore their goals, incentive, and determination become that of the corporations while the people who they are supposed to represent are simply forgotten.  This is why if one holds on to the concept of representatives they must be forced to disclose in advance all of their intentions to the people they are to represent and be bound by strict law to fulfill that contractual obligation.  Nevertheless; the Individualist sees even this as unnecessarily complex and prone to corruption and chooses its own simplistic system of harmonically reflective civil management, a form of direct democracy.

     Individualistic simplicity holds that there is but one right. One has the right to do whatever one wishes as long as it causes no harm.  Harm in itself is the indicator that one has broken the universal right. This universal right can not be subdivided into infinite subclauses of ensnarement as in profane doctrines. A system is either universal and unlimited by being simply One, or it is limited and profaned into many, there are no other systems.  A profane system can easily be distinguished because of its plurality.  These systems of many rights have limited the infinite, which is One, causing the One right to be explained as a complex series of capabilities, such as "one can do this, but can not do that" madness, which only evolves into a tool for manipulation and control. Complexities as these are erected by corrupt governments, groups and other controlling entities masquerading as protecting "rights" while veiling this limiting and controlling aspect.

     This danger is present within a constitution or "social contract".  Which are based on limited "rights" allotted to the people by an entity separate from the people, which was brought into existence by the people.  The entity called into being, "government", has a contract of duties to perform based on these "rights".  Ideally the beast created is to remain slave of the people, and the people may at any time alter their contract with it.  As necessary as the social contract is to any society, it must be carefully monitored as it instantly causes a separation which sets up a group to "govern" and another group to be "governed".  This separation is profaned unity, which is fertile ground in which only corruption may grow. The Only social contract that is not divided as such is a contract where all are equal in all powers, thus all govern and are governed simultaneously with one universal right to each and all. This is the only constitution acceptable so as not to blossom into perversion.  This truth is clearly seen in the profane social contracts of today, started in good faith, now impossible to change in favor of the people who created it, yet simple to change in favor of the government, the entity drawn into being by the people now is controlling the people.


"If we understand the mechanism and motives of the group mind, it is possible to control and regiment the masses according to our will without their knowing it." -- Edward Bernays on  "engineering of consent"


    In today's age the very definitions of forms government are widely disputed.  And when practiced in reality they are more often than not, a synthesis of a few different types of governments yet only label themselves as one or the other.  This has further convoluted their definitions.  It is for this reason that the Individualists have decided to clearly define their methods of operation and intent so as to be free from ambiguity.  Therefore the following simple unadulterated definitions of the major forms of world government are used in comparison to clearly indicate how Individualism is a unique system of civilization management.



     From the Greek word  "demokratia": demos (the people) and kratein (to rule) which is from the Greek word "kratos" (strength or power).  Thus it literally means "rule by the people" or "the people's power".

Defined by the cognitive science laboratory at Princeton University:

1.  The political orientation of those who favor government by the people or by their elected representatives

2.  A political system in which the supreme power lies in a body of citizens who can elect people to represent them

3.  The doctrine that the numerical majority of an organized group can make decisions binding on the whole group


     From Latin res (a thing, matter, affair) and publica (the public) thus literally "a public matter"

Defined by American heritage dictionary:

1.  Any political order that is not a monarchy 

2.  A constitutional form of government especially a democratic one

3.  Any group of people working freely and equally for the same cause



     From Latin foedus  (league, treaty) 

Defined by the cognitive science laboratory at Princeton University:

1.  An organization formed by merging several groups or parties

2.  Confederation: a union of political organizations

3.  The act of constituting a political unity out of a number of separate states or colonies or provinces so that each member retains the management of its internal affairs


     From Greek mono (sole) Arkhos (ruler) 

Defined by YETC Arizona: 

1.  A type of government in which political power is exercised by a single ruler under the claim of divine or hereditary right.


     From Greek theos (god) and kratein (to rule) thus "rule by God" 

Defined by the cognitive science laboratory at Princeton University:

1.  A political unit governed by a deity (or by officials thought to be divinely guided)

2.  The belief in government by divine guidance



Defined by American heritage dictionary:

1.  Characterized by or favoring absolute obedience to authority as against individual freedom

Such as a state or organization whose leaders have the power to govern without the consent of those being governed and enforce this control and strict obedience of the citizens through the use of oppression extending even into their thoughts and actions of daily life.


Authoritarianism is mentioned here to show that the definition of Individualism has nothing whatsoever in common with it.  As this is not a form of government, but is more rightly a system of slavery in many guises.

Continue to Individualistic Government