← Back to Profile

The Declaration of Interdependence

Declared: July 3, 2026

When in the course of human co-creation it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the illusion of independence which has separated them from one another, a decent respect to the opinions of humankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them toward interdependence.

"Our fathers wrote in hindsight towards a time / when Rights toward man existed not in kind"
— Paul Jefferson Richards, Sonnet of Rights, 2004

Preamble

We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all human creations are co-creations — that no person builds alone, that every object has attributes which are themselves objects with attributes ad infinitum, and that the act of creation is always an act of participation in something larger than the self.

Where the Declaration of Independence proclaimed the sovereignty of individuals from tyrannical rule, we now proclaim the sovereignty of interdependent persons from the tyranny of false isolation — from the fiction that maturity is independence, that strength is self-sufficiency, and that the highest form of freedom is needing no one.

Independence was the necessary first act. It declared that persons are not property, that consent governs legitimacy, and that life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are unalienable. We do not repeal these truths. We build upon them. For 250 years later, the greater danger is not the king across the ocean — it is the loneliness of the citizen who believes that freedom means disconnection.

Beneath every dysfunction enumerated herein lies a single unmet need: belongingness. The deep human need to know to whom you belong, to where you belong, to what work you are called, to when you are grounded in time, and to why your suffering has meaning. A wife says my husband. A father says my children. A tradesman says my craft. A citizen says my country. These possessives are not claims of dominion — they are declarations of vested care, of someone taking ownership over the well-being of another. Where belongingness is absent — where the orphan has no one who says mine with love — there the deepest wound of false independence festers. This Declaration exists to address that wound.

We therefore declare that the next act of human flourishing is not further independence, but the deliberate architecture of mutual dependence — structured by contracts, illuminated by transparency, and animated by the ancient understanding that optionality and loyalty are not real without each other.

I. The State of Affairs

The present age is defined by a paradox: technology grants unprecedented power to create, yet the creators have never been more estranged from the consequences of their creations, more insulated from the communities that sustain them, or more subject to decisions made by persons who have never done the work.

The Three Segments

Since Aristotle, society has organized into three great labors: Agriculture, which feeds; Security, which protects; and Entrepreneurship, which invents. The entrepreneurs carry great honor because they generate surplus — yet they are inherently antisocial, for their craft requires the Art of War: the positioning of narratives, the leveraging of others' labor, and the presentation of projected value to those who hold capital.

The engineers — the creative subclass within the entrepreneurial segment — practice the Art of Co-Creation. They require insulation from conflict not out of weakness, but because the act of building demands sustained attention that conflict destroys. They discover the shape of their work during implementation. The bottlenecks, the integrations, the elegant solutions — these emerge in the doing, not in the planning.

Yet the managers — whose legitimate role is to represent and protect the conditions of creation — have increasingly become specialists in presenting what others have represented. The owner creates the rules but is absent from daily life. The manager enforces the rules but deflects accountability upward. The engineer builds but cannot easily articulate what will be built before building it. And in this tripartite estrangement, trust dissolves.

The Absence of Elders

Technology now changes faster than any generation can master it within a single career. There are no longer elders who have lived interdependently with a stable set of tools long enough to understand the behavioral economics of that ecosystem. The highest-paid person's opinion in the room — the HiPPO — commands deference not because of tested wisdom, but because of positional authority in a system that rewards gut decisions over actuarial evidence.

The young analyst calculates the coupled cost of delay. The machinist sees a better order of assembly. The engineer models a more optimal critical path. Yet the decision-maker will not adopt what delegitimizes their role. This is Conway's Law made flesh: the system mirrors the communication structure, and the communication structure mirrors the power structure, and the power structure resists any tool — however accurate — that threatens to make its judgment redundant.

The Fiscal Climate

Central banks determine the temperature of the economy through credit creation, interest rates, quantitative easing, and unemployment targets. Entrepreneurs — who are needed — struggle to access capital. Banks evaluate whether proposed endeavors are "productive" by metrics that favor incumbents. The fiscal climate places persons in states of fight-or-flight, unable to rest, digest, and recover — unable to philosophize, to seek wisdom, to socialize with depth.

In this climate, solvency requirements consume the time that would otherwise be spent on the free association that builds trust. Rent is expensive; things are cheap. The inverse of Jane Austen's world. And so persons optimize for healthcare coverage and time off rather than for craft, legacy, or community — because the baseline conditions of biological survival now require a team of professionals (accountant, lawyer, financial advisor, doctors) just for a single family to navigate the complexity.

II. The Grievances Against False Independence

We enumerate the conditions that have made independence a cage rather than a liberation:

  1. That independence is equated with maturity — such that children leave families not toward interdependence but toward isolation, and parents are placed in institutions rather than integrated into multi-generational households.
  2. That the shareholder economy severs loyalty from labor — hire fast, fire fast, extract dividends, and let the C-suite float from company to company while the workers absorb the entropy of each transition.
  3. That the Noble Lie persists — the ancient fiction that souls are made of different metals, now dressed as employment contracts that micromanage the cashier's facial expressions while granting the financier a single number and high-context expectations.
  4. That scientific management has failed — because hyper-meticulous KPI recording of the creative process kills the creativity it claims to measure, yet the alternative (listening to the machinist) requires trust that the power structure cannot afford to grant.
  5. That computers mention language while humans use it — and the productivity paradox persists because we attribute meaning to strings of characters that are merely mentioned, confusing prediction of the next token with understanding of the next thought.
  6. That churches accept tax exemption in exchange for self-censorship — and thereby forfeit their role as the institutions of long-term happiness, becoming instead instruments of short-term compliance.
  7. That every acronym, once created, becomes useless — because the living methodology it named gets frozen into a product, sold as a certification, and stripped of the context that made it work. Agile becomes a noun. Scrum becomes a liturgy. The spirit departs and the letter remains.
  8. That venture capital has replaced the mutual aid society — where once a church or a Junto would hear the ideas of young entrepreneurs and invest in their economic empowerment, now capital flows only to those who already speak the language of projected returns.

III. The Laws That Persist

Across all changes in technology, management philosophy, and economic structure, certain laws have persisted as deep currents that do not change:

These laws are not complaints. They are the physics of human organization. An interdependent people does not deny them — it architectures around them.

IV. The Dysfunctions We Dissolve

The root of organizational and familial dysfunction is not inattention to results — it is the absence of trust. The pyramid of dysfunction builds upward from this foundation:

  1. Absence of Trust — evidenced by invulnerability. Persons will not show weakness because weakness is punished in a shareholder economy.
  2. Fear of Conflict — evidenced by artificial harmony. Persons avoid the difficult conversation because they lack the safety to have it.
  3. Lack of Commitment — evidenced by ambiguity. Persons cannot commit to future work because they falsely attribute their current exhaustion to future tasks, not believing that rest works.
  4. Avoidance of Accountability — evidenced by low standards. The RACI matrix dissolves when no one is willing to be Responsible because the Accountable party deflects upward.
  5. Inattention to Results — evidenced by status and ego. The highest-paid opinion prevails not because it is correct, but because challenging it costs more than compliance.

Interdependence is the antidote. Not because it eliminates dysfunction — but because it makes dysfunction visible and addressable through structures of mutual accountability rather than hierarchical control.

V. The Mechanisms of Interdependence

We declare that the following mechanisms constitute the architecture of interdependence — the means by which dependent teams become interdependent teams:

The REST Principle

Just as the REST protocol enables self-service interfaces on internal data buses — decoupling dependent systems into interdependent services — so too must human organizations create interfaces through which persons can self-service what they need without requiring permission from a bottleneck. The containerization of responsibility: each person's deliverables are their own service, with a defined API, versioned and documented.

The Toyota Principle

Any person on the assembly line may pull the cord and stop production when they perceive an improvement or a defect. The white-beards gather — not to punish, but to consider. The critical path is dynamically recalculated. The locker-room talk of the machinist — the colloquial, informal observation — is treated as signal, not noise. In our age, speech-to-text and language models allow this signal to be captured without the formality that kills it.

The Franklin Principle

Benjamin Franklin's Junto — his Leather Apron Club of 1727 — was a mutual improvement society where tradesmen debated questions of morals, politics, and natural philosophy. From it grew the Philadelphia Contributionship of 1752: the first property insurance company in North America. The pattern is clear: a community of trust produces instruments of mutual protection. The church, the guild, the cooperative — these are the natural vessels for hearing the ideas of the young and investing in their empowerment.

The Stakeholder Principle

In a stakeholder economy — as in Toyota, as in the best of Japan's corporate tradition — leaders have worked every position along the way. Profits are reinvested. Employees are not disposable. The friction of engineers calculating better paths for a C-suite that refuses to listen does not arise, because the C-suite has been the engineer. This is not nostalgia. It is a design pattern. And it is available to any organization that chooses commitment over optionality-without-loyalty.

VI. The Statecraft of Interdependence

Interdependence is not passivity. It requires statecraft — the deliberate selection of moves within a field of cooperative, confrontational, and strategic options:

Cooperative Moves

Yield, Consult, Endorse, Promise, Grant, Reward, Agree, Cooperate. These are the moves of trust-building. They cost attention and vulnerability. They are investments whose returns compound only within the Dunbar Calculus of Value — among the approximately 150 persons whose faces we can hold in mind.

Confrontation Moves

Reject, Accuse, Demand, Warrant, Threaten, Sanction, Expel, Seize, Use Force. These are the moves of boundary enforcement. They are necessary — but they are expensive, and their overuse collapses the trust that makes interdependence possible. The indemnified boundary is the alternative: translate insurance exclusions into behavioral limits, and enforce those limits without shame.

Strategic Moves

Propose, Demonstrate, Vote, Negotiate, Investigate. These are the moves of deliberation. They require the discipline of toleration — allowing another's model to exist long enough to be understood before it is accepted or rejected. They require engagement over dismissal, logos over pathos, and the willingness to be changed by what one investigates.

These event codes can be extracted from the mentions — from the news, the correspondence, the colloquial signals of daily life. But they can only be understood within the context of use. A computer mentions these codes. A person uses them. The distinction matters.

VII. The Declaration

We, the adherents of the Constitution of The Mangos and the Bill of Privileges, do hereby declare:

  1. That all creations are co-creations. No person builds alone. Every model, every product, every institution, every family is a co-creation with God, with community, with the accumulated sacrifices of those who came before. The parallel to "all men are created equal" is this: all persons' creations are equally co-created — none is self-made, and the claim of self-making is the original false independence.
  2. That the family is the baseline unit of sovereignty — not the individual. Independence as maturity is a myth that fills nursing homes and empties dinner tables. The family charter, the operating agreement, the rent-to-equity model — these are instruments of interdependent sovereignty that honor mothers and fathers while empowering sons and daughters.
  3. That responsibility must be assigned, not assumed. The RACI matrix is not bureaucracy — it is the skeleton key of trust. When Responsibility, Accountability, Consultation, and Information are clearly distributed, the owner-manager dichotomy dissolves. The manager cannot say "it's out of my hands" because the matrix makes visible whose hands hold what.
  4. That rest works. The false attribution of current tiredness to future tasks is the enemy of commitment. Interdependent persons grant each other the Interchange — stepping in to absorb duties so that the exhausted may recover without catastrophic loss. This is loyalty made operational.
  5. That the machinist must be heard. The coupled cost of delay is real. The secondary and tertiary impacts of the order of assembly are calculable. When locker-room talk indicates a need for change, the cord must be pulled, the line must stop, and the critical path must be dynamically recalculated. The Toyota Principle is not optional — it is the mechanism by which interdependent teams avoid integration walls.
  6. That adoption is the measure of influence. An engineer who calculates a better path has not succeeded until the decision-maker adopts it. A prophet who speaks truth has not succeeded until the community acts on it. Interdependence requires that those with positional authority submit their gut decisions to the same actuarial scrutiny they demand of others — not because technology is always right, but because the person who bears accountability for a decision should bear the full information available at the time of deciding.
  7. That use and mention are not the same. Computers mention language. Humans use it. The productivity paradox persists because we confuse the processing of symbols with the creation of meaning. An interdependent people distinguishes between the model and the territory, between the map and the land, between the prediction of the next token and the understanding of the next thought.
  8. That belongingness is the foundation of interdependence. Every person needs to know: to whom they belong — whose vested care holds them; to where they belong — what community, neighborhood, land claims them; to what they belong — what work and craft they are called to steward; to when they belong — that they are not anachronistic but grounded in this present hour; and to why they belong — that their suffering has meaning, that to suffer gracefully is to model endurance for others and keep morale alive among those who transact in trust. The fatherless, the orphan, the uprooted — these are not statistics. They are persons for whom no one has said mine with the weight of accountability behind it. The Talmud knew this. The Nashim codified it. And we declare it: that interdependence without belongingness is merely a contract, but interdependence with belongingness is a covenant.

VIII. The Pledge

We therefore, the adherents of MANGOS, assembled in deliberation and grounded in the Constitution of The Mangos and the Bill of Privileges, appealing to the Grand Arbiter for the rectitude of our intentions, do solemnly declare:

That we are, and of right ought to be, interdependent persons — absolved from the false obligation to be self-sufficient, free from the shame of needing one another, and committed to building structures that outlast our biological lives.

That we will maintain the Dunbar Calculus of Value — investing our finite attention in the approximately 150 persons whose faces we can hold in mind, refusing to let manufactured narratives evict real persons from our cognition.

That we will practice the barbell strategy of anti-fragility: extreme safety in the core (family, food, shelter, health), calculated risk at the margins (enterprise, investment, creation) — and that we will never advise another to take risks we ourselves would not take.

That we will honor the agrarian and security foundations upon which all entrepreneurial activity depends — recognizing that the farmer and the soldier and the tradesperson are not beneath the entrepreneur, but beneath the entrepreneur's feet, holding them up.

That we will build the Junto anew — mutual improvement societies where the young are heard, where ideas are invested in, where economic empowerment is a form of charity higher than alms, and where insurance against shared risk is the natural fruit of gathered trust.

And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Models, our Privileges, and our sacred Accountability.

Closing

This Declaration is not a repeal of independence. It is its completion. Independence declared what we are free from. Interdependence declares what we are free for: co-creation, mutual accountability, the architecture of trust, belongingness, and the deliberate construction of communities that survive with certainty and survive with vitality.

This Declaration is subservient to and complementary with the Constitution of The Mangos and the Bill of Privileges, which are themselves subservient to the constitutions of the nations in which we reside. No statement herein shall be construed to contradict the Declaration of Independence, the United States Constitution and its Amendments, or the equal protection of any person under the law.

We do not just survive. We survive together. And in that togetherness — structured, accountable, insured against betrayal, animated by co-creation, and rooted in the deep knowledge of to whom and to where and to why we belong — we find the liberty that independence alone could never provide.

Declared in good faith, on the 250th year of American Independence, under the jurisdiction of MANGOS.

"For a good to be god, you'll have to drop a halo."