The Problem with “We”
In the domain of English grammar, few things are more grating than a vague or ambiguous pronoun. One of the most abused is “we.” It is often used to imply unity or belonging, even when those things may or may not exist. If this pronoun is to be used with integrity, it must be used with precision and specificity. This is especially true when “we” is used to organize a cause with an objective or an intended operation.
Why a Common Denominator Matters
This idea of organizing for an objective is explored in the article Factions and Fractions. There, a parallel is drawn between numerical fractions and factions within a republic. In both cases, a common denominator is required for any meaningful operation. Without it, there is no true addition, only confusion. For the sake of the operation, it is therefore necessary to take inventory of our “factors” and determine which are non-negotiable and which can be set aside. This idea of “factors” is useful in both senses: mathematically, as we look for common denominators, and reflectively, as we parse the individual elements within our convictions.
Our operation is Education Independence.
Our essential factors are the four pillars:
- Independent Parents
- Independent Funding
- Independent Pursuit
- Independent Ideas
The four pillars establish a common denominator. They allow us to identify unity where it truly exists and to recognize separation where it does not. In this way, they provide meaningful clarity.
This is our “we.”
We have reduced what is essential to the bare minimum. In doing so, we avoid trespassing on the sovereignty of families in how they exercise that independence, while firmly supporting their right to it. We are not organizing around what families ought to do with their freedom, but around their right to that freedom itself.
This gives the argument its form. It allows us to build on the bedrock of principle rather than the shifting sand of sentiment.
A “We” Built on Shared Claims
But this “we” is not merely a shared understanding. It is a shared claim.
Our “we” is predicated on the right to and responsibility for Education Independence. These claims are not invented by the state, granted by policy, or sustained by public approval. They are endowed by our Creator, who gave parents the responsibility of raising their children.
Additionally, our “we” is predicated on the claim to private ownership, which comes with ownership rights. This is not merely a practical distinction, but a political, civil, and jurisdictional one. Because we hold to the pillar of Independent Funding, our case rests on the foundation of private property rights. Whoever finances an activity owns it. If the state does not use taxpayer dollars to bankroll our education, then the taxpayer, by means of representation, has no stake in our private property and no rightful claim to govern it.
“We” and Parental Authority
Parental authority determines who directs the education of children, and private ownership determines who governs the space in which that education takes place. Parents do not hold this responsibility by permission of the public, but by prior and higher claim. Where something is privately owned, it is not publicly owned, and therefore not publicly governed.
Together, these establish a distinct jurisdiction. They give shape and substance to our claims and make separation not only possible but necessary. As the Declaration of Independence states, there are times when it becomes necessary for one people “to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another” and to assume “the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them.”
That is the language of jurisdiction and rightful separation. These shared claims form a principled boundary within which independent pursuits and independent ideas can take root and flourish. This is what the first two pillars secure.
Educational Freedom and Decentralization
Consequently, whatever is held separate from the domain of the state is insulated from centralization. The first two pillars build legal walls of separation, while the second two clarify the substance to be protected from the centralization of political power. In this way, educational freedom mirrors the logic of religious freedom. Just as religious freedom protects the liberty of conscience from state control, educational freedom is essential to protecting the formation of conscience from state control.
The substance? Freedom of form and freedom of content. This protects society from centralized control over expression, over what may be spoken, over what may be printed, and over which narratives are permitted to shape public life. Here educational freedom intersects directly with freedom of speech and freedom of the press, because the power to govern content is the power to govern what a people may say and publish, and ultimately believe.
“Liberty and justice for all” requires that these domains remain decentralized. Only then is responsibility returned to its proper jurisdiction, and only then is self-governance meaningfully preserved.
Why Defining “We” Matters
Without this degree of clarity, we do not know who “we” are or what our objective and intended operation is. In its absence, we are easily tempted to circumvent principle in the name of pragmatism. Our platform guards against both confusion and compromise.
If “we” is not clearly defined, it will be assumed, and in being assumed, it will be distorted or replaced.
Some may argue that these pillars require depth and that it may take time for someone to discern whether they are part of this “we.” That is not a weakness but a strength. We do not fear the process of testing ideas. Truth will withstand scrutiny, and what cannot withstand scrutiny is not truly true.
It may be that through honest examination we discover alignment, or it may be that we discover we do not align. In either case, the community is strengthened, because clarity has been gained. We are committed to the pursuit of what is most true, and we stand in humility, submitting ourselves to that truth wherever it leads.
Conclusion: A “We” That Can Endure
A “we” that is not clearly defined will not endure. It will drift, distort, and eventually be replaced. But a “we” grounded in agreement on the principled boundaries of parental authority and private ownership can sustain freedom across generations. Put another way, the first two pillars, “Independent Parents” and “Independent Funding,” establish the boundaries that protect the last two pillars, “Independent Pursuit” and “Independent Ideas.”
If we are to preserve Education Independence, we must be disciplined enough to define it, defend it, and distinguish it. Only then do we have the clarity necessary to act together without confusion or compromise.
There is peace in this clarity.
We do not need perfect uniformity in philosophy, pedagogy, structure, culture, or method in order to stand together. We are not united by identical expression, but by a shared claim to jurisdictional authority. The four pillars, Independent Parents, Independent Funding, Independent Pursuit, and Independent Ideas, provide enough definition to establish meaningful unity while still leaving room for the rich diversity that naturally flows from freedom.
That is what makes this “we” durable.
Our ark builders are those who share a common understanding and a common claim to the four pillars of Education Independence. These establish our common denominator. They allow us to identify unity where it truly exists and to recognize separation where it does not, without fear, hostility, or confusion.
This is our “we.”
Written by:
