I said I live on the top of a mountain. It is only a hill. 
Day 80 of My Living Xperiment: I have a conflict at my designated 420 Ramble time today, so, instead, watch me feed my
— Carla Gericke, Live Free And Thrive! (@CarlaGericke) March 21, 2025
Today’s 420 Ramble includes a lot of information about how to regulate your Central Nervous System. If you find yourself flying off the handle, find yourself repeating patterns of behavior over and over, find yourself in beefs because you are intoxicated, this one is for you!
It’s been two weeks since Ma passed away.
Thank you to all who reached out with condolences, sent flowers, and to all our family, dispersed across the world–South Africa, America, Australia, and Canada–a special thanks for the shared memories and photos. I look forward to connecting more at Madalein Gericke‘s celebration of life in May.
Of all the great photos I received of my effortlessly beautiful mother, I love this one of her lounging in her reddish-pink shirt above the most. (I feel like she would judge me right now for being too lazy to figure out the exact shade, like an oil painter might. lol)
This photo represents three generations of South Africans: my mother and her brother, Schalk, his wife Elizabeth, and her mother, Tannie Mimi, who, as a good friend of my Ouma, always played a role in my life, and me, in 1988, in my vintage store white dress with the handkerchief hem. I lost my virginity in that dress.
This is next to the pool at our home in Colbyn, where summers were spent swimming, braaing, drinking, arguing, loving, laughing, and living.
My mother had a hard life for someone so fortunate. Her stroke changed her, but her sense of humor and spark remained until the very the end. For that we were lucky.
Right after she passed, before my sister called me, a huge bird landed right in my eyesight as I was pensively staring out the window trying to process the reality of her impending death.
I believe she was coming to say goodbye, and now I will always see her in all the birds, which means she is forever around me. 
Heading home late after seeing Kraftwerk with some friends in Boston. Barely squeaked in for the day, but I hacked it! 
For some reason, this X Live is showing up as a link instead of having the video embedded. I’ll need to look into why that is, but in the meantime, here is Sunday’s “Series of Self” with today’s word “Self-awareness.” Towards the end, I merge my discussion with what is needed for a genuine apology: the self-awareness of what you did wrong. Without that, an apology is just an empty promise that will result in the same behavior in the future.
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.
Individualism prioritizes personal autonomy, self-ownership, and voluntary association. It assumes that:
This leads to decentralized, voluntary societies where individuals engage in cooperation by choice rather than force.
The state operates on the opposite premise:
The state justifies its power by claiming:
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:
In other words: The state claims to serve the individual, but it does so by subjugating the individual.
The real issue isn’t whether society should have structure—it’s how much coercion should be allowed in that structure.
Possible solutions:
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.
At the heart of the paradox is this question: Should individuals be allowed to opt out of the state?
The truly self-determined individual must ask:
The moment an individual cannot opt out, they are no longer free—they are subjects, not citizens.
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?
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?
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.
In all these cases, the individual is sacrificed for the collective. The implicit message is: You don’t matter as much as “society.”
Example:
Whenever the state defines the greater good, individual rights become irrelevant.
The “greater good” is often a Trojan horse for authoritarianism. Governments and corporations use it to:
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.
What is considered the greater good today may not be tomorrow.
The truth does not change just because the majority believes something is “good.”
Instead of sacrificing individuals for an abstract collective, we must recognize that a free, self-determined individual is the highest societal good.
A free society creates the true greater good: one where each person can pursue their own happiness, without being sacrificed for others.
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?