Home > Decent Democracy > Vol 2: On Democracy > Breaking Dependence

Breaking Dependence

Dependence of thought

The idea that everyone can be "thought dependent" simply doesn’t make any sense. If everyone else is dependent on someone else to make decisions no decision can ever be made as a endless chain of decision dependence is created to do anything at all.

So, at least some people must be independent thinkers for society to function in a coherent way. All political philosophers advocate this, where there is difference is "how many independent thinkers there should be". Some political philosophers believe only a small circle (usually including themselves) should be able to think independently and everyone else must be conditioned from a young age to step in line.

This political philosophy sets out to demonstrate that the more independent thinkers the better (the proof appears later on).

But, regardless of the philosophical arguments about "who should be allowed to philosophize", how can you personally "decide" to be dependent to make decisions. So, whether the "small group of deciders camp" may be able to convince themselves about their theory, but what they can’t do is convince anyone else in on the merits of the theory alone, since that would entail that person understands the topic, the decision to be made and thus reviews the theory independently (what "on the merits of the theory alone" entails) and "decides it’s better to be dependent". An independently minded decision to be dependent to make decisions is simply a contradictory mental state that I trust the reader, after reflecting on the matter, will see is no good. The reader may decide the the "small group of decision makers" theory is correct but afterwhich their only coherent course is to "try to join the decision makers".

Those that decide otherwise should take note that the inability to create a theory to independently convince people to decide to remain or strive to be dependent to make decisions is no possible. They can maintain dependence of mind only by manipulation and confusion which is not a stable state of affairs. This is a central weakness to their ambitions. The maybe successful in limited historical conditions for a limited time, but any success cannot be stable for anyone who becomes aware of the issue cannot coherently decide to be decision dependent and the source of ideas cannot be controlled.

The Labyrinth

Thought dependence creates a maze of concepts all leading back to one really loud suggestion: Don’t get out of line.

Navigating out of this maze is extremely difficult.

Unfortunately, just as "small group of decider" cannot force anyone who becomes indecently minded to be dependent again as that would imply a dependence yet we have just asserted the person has become independent, likewise the independently minded cannot force the dependently minded to become independent as again that would imply a dependence which is not the independence that is trying to be forced.

And so, anyone habituated to dependence of mind and is struggling to become independently minded is quite literally "on their own" in this regard. However, a tiny bit of independence of mind can be fortunately translated to the decision to become more independently minded.

Physical dependence

Once someone exits mental dependence they may discover they are in a physical dependence of one form or another. This entire book is basically dedicated to providing as much information on achieving as much physical independence as possible for not only yourself but simultaneously contributing to the physical independence of everyone else. For, the simple act of moving away from the current centralized economic system weakens it and so strengthens anyone else’s attempt to do likewise.


Nearly everything about the modern world is addictive. This is not surprising considering that the great majority of people find modernity nauseous, destructive of community and the environment. If there was not a strong compelling force to maintain modernity, in the communities where it is implanted, or to adopt it, in the communities where it is yet, then we might expect a great number of alternatives to modernity.

We should also expect modernity to e addictive as it is the fruit of capitalism. Clearly a product that is addictive will sell better than a product that is not, and so, even without the intention to do so, the companies that manage to create highly addictive products will do better than those without addictive products by simply following profits. Fructose-glucose artificial sugar is an example of this. Initially the soda industry was motivated to create artificial sugar because it would be cheaper, and then shortly after its use noticed an increase in profits. In both steps, 1. finding a cheaper alternative and 2. expanding the use of a product that sells well, is a predictable result regardless of whether anyone in the soda industry was aware, or even wondered, that this new artificial sugar was addictive. Shortly after, nearly every mouth substance industry found that adding glucose-fructose sugar to their products added to their profits, and so we find glucose-fructose artificial sugar in everything from bred to honey.

We also find that television is addictive. Simply not having a television is a great way to avoid it.

The internet is also addictive but has lot’s of useful information on it. Simply avoiding it may not be possible for some professions (even working in the decentralized economy). Developing a positive use of the internet is difficult but not impossible. I’ve been working on good internet habits for 10 years and have definitely made progress. However, having been born in 1985 and among essentially the first generation to grow up with the internet, it’s clearly not a good tool to simply give children full access; it’s unclear to me at the moment what the best way is to teach good internet habits is to children. Though of course my generation has also proven the internet doesn’t destroy our faculties, as with every other powerful tool it’s better to teach good habits than not.


copyright 2006 - 2020 Eerik Wissenz