To govern oneself is fundamentally about having control over one’s own life. It means the freedom to pursue your own choices, direct your own efforts, and bear responsibility for your own outcomes. That is also to be free from unnecessary intrusion by others. Self-government isn’t simply a matter of how we structure politics or how many representatives we send to legislative bodies. Self-government is not something you do at the ballot box. Rather, it begins at a deeply personal level: the belief that each individual should be trusted to run their own affairs.
True self-government thrives when individuals possess the maximum freedom to determine their own course in life without the heavy hand of external authority or excessive government spending dictating their decisions. Self-government is not your neighbor controlling your life choices. Historically, this principle guided the American founding, rooted in the conviction that the greatest threat to liberty comes not from too little government, but from too much. Government becomes too costly, not only financially but also morally, when it ventures beyond protecting basic rights and begins deciding matters best left to individual discretion.
From this viewpoint, every dollar spent on programs and bureaucracies that intrude unnecessarily into private lives is not just expensive economically, but expensive to personal liberty itself. Every intrusion reduces the scope for personal responsibility, weakening the spirit of independence and individual accountability upon which a genuinely free society depends.
The key insight from the best minds of the Enlightenment and classical republican tradition was precisely that governments, left unchecked, inevitably expand. As they grow, they increasingly dictate choices that citizens should make themselves, substituting collective judgment for individual wisdom and weakening the self-reliance essential to a healthy society.
This does not mean that government has no legitimate function. Rather, it suggests a clear standard: Government’s proper role is strictly confined to those tasks individuals cannot reasonably accomplish alone—securing basic rights, maintaining justice, and ensuring peace. Beyond these essential tasks, government quickly becomes more expensive than it’s worth, robbing individuals not just of money but of initiative, independence, and dignity.
In truth, genuine self-government recognizes the competence of each individual to manage their own lives. It means leaving as many decisions as possible to the voluntary choices of individuals rather than central planners or distant bureaucrats. It respects each person’s right to succeed or fail on their own merits, to learn from personal experience, and to freely chart their own course.
At its heart, self-government is simply self-determination. It is individuals trusting themselves to run their own lives far better and far less expensively than government ever could.
This principle has deep roots, extending back to the classical world. Ancient Greek city-states flourished when their citizens embraced personal responsibility, accountability, and independence. Athens, in its golden age, exemplified this ideal. Citizens freely pursued their economic interests, personal goals, and community life largely without the heavy intrusion of centralized bureaucratic institutions. It was precisely this personal freedom and civic autonomy that made Athens thrive culturally and economically. Yet, when Athens gradually abandoned individual autonomy in favor of centralized authority and costly public programs, the city quickly fell into decline—its once vibrant spirit dulled by dependency and bureaucracy.
The Roman Republic similarly provides a powerful historical proof. Rome rose from a modest city to a world power largely on the strength of citizens who governed their personal affairs independently, cultivating their own land, managing their own economic lives, and taking personal responsibility for their outcomes. When Rome shifted from individual independence toward a centralized imperial structure, personal autonomy steadily eroded. The result was a loss of initiative, creativity, and ultimately the moral and social strength necessary for sustaining a free society.
Enlightenment philosophers crystallized these classical insights, reinforcing the vital role of self-government as the bedrock of liberty. John Locke argued that governments exist solely to safeguard natural rights—life, liberty, and property—not to regulate personal choices. Locke warned clearly that when governments begin making decisions properly left to individuals, they inevitably become oppressive, costly, and destructive to individual freedom. Likewise, Montesquieu emphasized that liberty could only survive when government power was clearly limited and defined. A government allowed to expand unchecked would quickly intrude upon decisions individuals should freely make themselves, eventually destroying liberty itself.
These historical lessons profoundly influenced America’s founders, who witnessed firsthand the abuses of intrusive, expensive government under British rule. The founders recognized clearly that every expansion of centralized authority diminished the individual’s ability to govern his or her own life. Thomas Jefferson famously insisted that government should remain minimal precisely because he trusted the individual’s capacity to direct their affairs better than any distant bureaucrat or central planner. James Madison similarly warned of government overreach in Federalist No. 45, stating that federal powers must be “few and defined,” with the vast majority of decisions properly left to individuals and their communities.
Historically, the growth of government beyond its essential functions quickly becomes costly—not merely economically but morally and culturally. Government spending itself becomes a form of intrusion because every dollar spent on unnecessary programs reduces an individual’s ability to direct their resources according to their own priorities. High taxes and complex regulations drain not only wealth but individual initiative, creativity, and responsibility. As individuals increasingly rely on centralized programs, they inevitably surrender the personal responsibility and autonomy required for genuine self-government.
Consider the historical expansion of federal programs since the New Deal and the Great Society. Initially justified as temporary solutions to extraordinary circumstances, these programs expanded rapidly into permanent institutions, consuming vast sums of taxpayer resources. Over time, the original promise—that government intervention would merely support self-governance—became distorted, instead creating widespread dependency. This dependency steadily eroded personal initiative, diminished community engagement, and transferred responsibility from individuals to distant bureaucratic entities, thus weakening the fundamental spirit of self-government itself.
The pattern repeats itself at all levels—local, state, and federal. Historically, whenever governments intrude into choices individuals should make independently—how to educate their children, manage their healthcare, utilize their property, or conduct their businesses—liberty suffers. The individual’s freedom to govern their own life shrinks as bureaucracy grows, becoming increasingly expensive in every sense.
Understanding these historical patterns helps illuminate current threats to self-government. The classical, Enlightenment, and founding-era warnings remain powerfully relevant today. The modern era is filled with examples where governments at all levels overstep their bounds, infringing upon the individual’s capacity for self-government.
History proves time and again that governments, once unchecked, naturally drift toward micromanaging people’s lives under the assumption that individuals cannot be trusted to make responsible decisions for themselves.
Take, for example, New York City’s infamous “large soda ban,” enacted under former Mayor Michael Bloomberg. This regulation, enacted in 2012, sought to restrict the sale of sugary drinks larger than 16 ounces, assuming ordinary citizens weren’t capable of managing their own dietary choices. It wasn’t merely the triviality of soda size that made this regulation notable—it was the troubling implication that people needed city bureaucrats to decide something as simple as how much soda they should be allowed to buy. The courts eventually struck down the ban, but the attempt itself became emblematic of government’s tendency to encroach unnecessarily upon self-government and personal choice.
Closer to home, Greene County, Tennessee, has seen this as our local government has attempted to ban and overregulate the type of home someone can live in. I recently attempted remove some of these regulations to make it easier to live in a tiny home or RV. I was met with opposition from even the county attorney who saw it as a safety issue because that may not be the safest type of homes to live in. This serves as a stark reminder of how quickly local government can move toward imposing decisions traditionally—and effectively—left to individuals themselves.
At the state level, Tennessee made headlines when lawmakers proposed restrictions aimed at limiting the ability of individuals to sell homemade baked goods directly to neighbors without stringent state licensing requirements and inspections. While sold under the guise of public health, this legislation implied that Tennessee citizens couldn’t be trusted to decide for themselves whether to buy cookies or pies baked by their neighbors—something they’d safely and freely done for generations. The backlash from citizens eventually led to changes in the law, yet it demonstrated the persistent impulse of government authorities to control even the simplest personal decisions.
Nationally, similar stories abound. Consider the widely publicized example from Portland, Oregon, where a seven-year-old’s lemonade stand was shut down by city officials because the child lacked the required $120 permit. Such absurd examples expose the underlying assumption of bureaucratic thinking: individuals—even young children—cannot be trusted to sell or buy a cup of lemonade without government oversight.
Perhaps one of the most troubling examples at the federal level involves the case of Amish farmers repeatedly targeted by FDA raids and heavy fines for selling unpasteurized milk directly to informed customers who willingly assumed any minor health risks involved. The government’s argument—that citizens were incapable of evaluating the risks for themselves—was not merely insulting but deeply damaging to individual autonomy and personal responsibility.
Each of these examples underscores a crucial truth: when governments believe people cannot make responsible decisions for themselves, individual liberty suffers. Over time, these seemingly minor intrusions accumulate, fundamentally reshaping society and weakening the principle of self-government.
These stories remind us clearly that self-government isn’t about government trusting individuals occasionally—it is about recognizing that individuals, not distant bureaucrats or regulators, are best qualified to manage their own daily lives.
Each of these examples—whether absurd soda bans in New York City or overly restrictive local zoning regulations—reveals the same fundamental problem: we’ve drifted away from the founding ideal that true self-government means governing ourselves, making our own decisions, and allowing others to do the same.
Our nation’s founders understood clearly that personal responsibility, autonomy, and independence are the bedrock of a free society. They envisioned a government strictly limited in scope, with powers defined narrowly, precisely to prevent it from intruding unnecessarily into citizens’ daily lives. They believed deeply that individuals—not distant bureaucrats or centralized planners—know best how to manage their own affairs.
We must return to that founding vision. The solution isn’t complicated: It’s about respecting the capacity of individuals to direct their own lives responsibly and to bear the consequences—positive or negative—of their decisions. It means recognizing that our neighbors have the right to pursue their happiness according to their own judgment, not ours.
In short, true self-government asks us to mind our own business, trust each other to manage our own lives, and reserve government intervention strictly for protecting essential liberties—not regulating our everyday choices.
This isn’t merely a political argument—it’s the cornerstone of liberty itself. History proves that societies flourish when individuals are free to govern themselves. It’s time we restored that essential American principle, embraced the responsibility it demands, and reclaimed the freedom it offers.
Leave a Reply