What Sort of People Do We Want to Be?

Opening the floor to your ideas (DN 4.1)

Cover page | Preface | Introduction 1 | Introduction 2 | Introduction 3 |

(Part I) Why: 1.0 | 1.1 | 1.2 | 1.3 | 1.4 | 1.5 | 1.6 | 1.7 | 1.8 | 1.9 | 1.10 | 1.11 | 1.12 | 1.13 | 1.14 | 1.15 | 1.16 | 1.17 | 1.18 | 1.19 | 1.20 | 1.21 |1.22

(Part II) What: 2.0 | 2.1 | 2.2 | 2.3 | 2.4 | 2.5 | 2.6 | 2.7 | 2.8 | 2.9 | 2.10 I 2.11 | 2.12 | 2.13 | 2.14 | 2.15 | 2.16 | 2.17 | 2.XX | 2.18 | 2.19 | 2.20 | 2.21 | | Where: 3.0 | 3.1 | 3.2 | 3.3 | 3.4 | 3.5 | 3.6 | 3.7 | 3.8 | 3.9 | 3.10 | 3.11 | 3.12 | 3.13 || Who: 4.0 | 4.1

---

(Note: This is an installment of The Distributed Nation. For installments of The Freedom Scale (book), see here.

---

Chapter 4.1
The Character of a People

We want to be free. We want to be independent. We want our individual sovereignty respected. And since governments definitely violate all three of these—we want to be free of involuntary governance. This is why we’re here together, discussing ways to form a nation that will help us achieve these goals.

We are right to want these things. On the most fundamental of levels, we deserve them. But it does also occur to me to wonder…

Should we also try to make ourselves worthy of them?

Most of us, at one point or another, consider the topic of self-improvement. We’d like to improve our physical appearance or health, expand our knowledge, or work on character flaws. And if we achieve a measure of success in any of these goals, then we are doing well—especially given how easy it can be to just coast through life.

We have explored the Why, What, and Where, and we are now looking at the Who. Who are we? Who do we want to be?

To me, this begins with an important meta-question: Who should we want to be?

As we have discussed at some length, we are not creating some totalizing system for our new kind of nation. There are no tests or specific entry requirements. You just have to be a human being, anywhere in the world, who wants to be free.

But are there any traits to which we would like to aspire?

The Character of a People

Americans, it is said, have no ethnicity. We in the States are descended from people from everywhere. The common belief is that the U.S. is based on ideas, not blood.

But this isn’t entirely accurate. Years ago, I read something fascinating. Studies of Americans of all ethnic backgrounds did find a common genetic feature: the risk taking gene (DRD4). Not everyone has it, of course, but Americans, according to studies, were more likely to have it than other populations.

It makes sense. Our ancestors were the sort of people who chose to cross tempestuous oceans in clunky wooden ships in order to seek a new life on the edge of a howling wilderness. Or they came a little later and took on other sorts of risks. Either way, they were the ones who didn’t stay home—who didn’t cling to the familiar. They took the risk, and passed on the genetic trait that made that risk-taking more likely.

We are creating a new kind of nation from scratch. It would be counterproductive and artificial (and a bit…icky) to try to contrive a culture and impose it, rather than just letting one develop organically. And yet we do start out with certain traits…

There are people who want to be kept, and people who want to be free. We are the latter. There are people who believe whatever the regime tells them, and people who don’t. We are the latter. We could easily go on listing similar dichotomies for another paragraph or two. Obviously nothing is perfectly black and white; things are always on a continuum. But you get the idea.

In other words, we already have a national character. We already have the beginnings of a culture.

Not Contrivance, but Aspiration

A certain type of person, then, is more likely to choose to be a part of a distributed nation seeking (eventual) total independence from all involuntary governance. A culture will absolutely form from that.

That does not mean, however, that we cannot also guide the process somewhat—not through contrivance, but through aspiration. We are absolutely free to ask ourselves, and each other, not just what sort of people we are, but what sort of people we would like to be.

We want to be free and independent. What characteristics of a people make us worthy of such a goal? What characteristics can we adopt to help us attain our goal?

Character is, of course, an individual phenomenon. The character of a group is the result of the character of its individual members, and our nation is absolutely based on the sovereignty of the individual.

Yet we, as individuals, will be choosing to be a part of a group with some important shared goals. So it is worth it to ask ourselves what characteristics we might adopt that will help us achieve those goals.

Opening the Floor

I have some thoughts in this regard, but I would also like to hear yours. What sorts of traits do you think would make it more likely for us to attain our independence? What are the traits to which you feel we ought to aspire?

Throughout this chapter, I will be offering some thoughts of my own. For example…

I believe we will have to be a patient people. I wish there were a quick fix, but I fear there is no magic wand that can undo millennia of involuntary governance. It won’t take millennia to undo, but it might take longer than the years some of us have left. Myself included.

Maybe there will be a quicker fix. Maybe governments will begin to collapse, and if we are sufficiently prepared, we can simply step into, and be able to maintain, our freedom and independence. Or maybe some other unforeseen eventuality will come to pass that speeds the process. Or maybe not.

We have to be prepared either way. We must not be the sort of people who never start a project for want of a quick fix. Instant gratification is for toddlers.

This means that on top of being patient, we will also have to be committed and relentless. We must have vision—a goal that we are working to attain, and towards which we each do our part, even knowing that we may ourselves not be around to see its full realization. We have to care enough about our children, and about the vision, to do our best.

There was a group of people like this in a book I recently read. They had a responsorial motto. One would say, We did not light the torch and the other would reply, We will not see the bonfire. They were committed to a generational project.

There is something to that.

I cannot predict what will happen,. Maybe we’ll get lucky, or maybe we will find a way to goose the process. Either way, we must get started and take on the task.

Some of our aspirations are obvious. We are, and will be, people who deeply cherish our sovereignty and right to consent. We believe in the sovereignty of our property and personal spaces. We will try to dwell in truth, rather than, as Vaclav Havel said, “Living within the lie.”

We also have every right to be angry at what is being done to us, and about what has been done to nearly the whole of the human species for millennia. But it almost certainly does us no good to come off as angry.

People have already tried donning camo and hiding in the woods. All it does is frighten the normies and invite more Ruby Ridges. If the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results…well then we should probably try not to be insane.

To this end, we are going to explore subjects like civility and nobility. Can we pursue our goals without inviting repression or freaking out the squares? Can we be nicer than average. Better than average? Might those sorts of approaches produce superior results than quick-fix gestures that feel good for five minutes, but get us nowhere?

Can we find ways to be happy, in this world that is giving us so many reasons not to be? Can we set an example for others—an example that makes them want to join us, rather than fearing or opposing us?

Can we find a way to teach tolerance? Not the left’s gimmicky, thinly veiled power-play definition of tolerance, but the practice that other people’s beliefs are not anyone’s concern unless they are causing force to be imposed on others. How much more peaceful would the world be if we all practiced that approach?

And there’s that word: peaceful. Ultimately, we want peace. We want to be a peaceful people. Yet we are faced with a dilemma: we are being subjected, by acts of force, to a kind of slavery. At one level of analysis, we would be within our rights to throw off this oppression by any means necessary.

But is that the best course of action? Will it provide the shortest route to victory? And is it the most moral course? These are questions we will absolutely have to explore.

We are individuals, not a hive.

We are going our own way, not trying to force anyone else.

We seek to be productive and responsible for our own fate, rather than mooching or putting that responsibility on anyone else.

There are other traits to which I believe it would be wise to aspire. But I would like to hear your ideas as well, so let’s open the floor and discuss your thoughts!

Finding our name

As we discussed last week, we cannot keep calling ourselves by the generic term “distributed nation” forever. Eventually, we must find the name of ours.

We discussed terms like Kyfho and Terra, both of which have advantages. No decisions are made yet, but work is underway on that front. In the meantime, I would like to collate some of the suggestions you made…

Naturally, words like liberty and libertas came up. This lies at the heart of what we all want.

AussieManDust mentioned Atlantis, and I understand why. There is mystery in the name, but also a sense of something real—a place (or a condition) that has been lost but can be reclaimed. It might have too much baggage for those same reasons, but it’s an intriguing thought.

(Anthony Bruni then piggybacked on that discussion with the Pacific Ocean version of Atlantis—Lemuria—to which I asked if we would then have to call ourselves Lemurs.)

Amaterasu Solar suggested “Earthians” as an alternative to Terra/Terrans.

There was some discussion of multi-word names with acronyms. That is certainly a possibility, though that can connote an organization more than a nation. I would prefer, if possible, to have something shorter and more gestalt. But the door remains open.

There were ideas for modifying or adding to the Terra concept. Hat Bailey offered a few, including Free Terra, which has an obvious appeal. Dave Wise (Neoteric Wood Art) suggested adding the neo- prefix (Neoterra/Neoterran). That one had occurred to me (though Dave did offer some cool new justifications for it), as had something like Alterra (a reduced portmanteau of alternative + terra). All of these have some appeal.

And there were others.

Of all of them, though, the one that I believe has the greatest potential is Hat Bailey’s suggest of Freehold. It works on a lot of levels: It is descriptive. It is inspiring without being LARPy. It is definitely short and gestalt. I am continuing deliberations and testing various ideas, but I must say—that’s a pretty good one.

---

That’s good for right now. Please feel free to share your ideas on all these topics, and whatever else you’d like.

---