To the editor:

In 1776, the land of the I declared its independence from the land of the We. The individualists succeeded in that war and forged the land of individual responsibility. The nation of I flourished. The standard of living as compared to the countries of We was significantly higher. The nation had individuals who lived in poverty, but the nation had considerably less poverty than the countries of We. The nation's economic strength was in the individuals who had freedom to market their talents and gain monetarily to acquire property and comforts. The nation's great moral strength was in individual responsibility, the morality brought forth by Abraham and Moses from God.

Inside this new land of individualists, groups of We appeared in 1789. Their selling point was We would be more responsible and moral as a groups than any single individual could possibly be. At first, the individuals of I resisted, remembering the cruelty and poverty of the We nations in Europe. But I weakened. Gradually over the next 100 years, this tug of war between the We and I was basically a draw. At any given moment one would have the upper hand, and the next moment the other would.

Scholars noticed a pattern of strife and war during times that We were in control. They also noticed that the size and power of government increased and individual morality decreased during those times. Scholars also noticed after the strife of war ended that individual responsibility and morality quickly returned in the areas less affected by the war and a great deal more slowly in the areas that were affected directly.

Politicians, not wanting to miss an opportunity for gain, enlisted the services of these scholars. They promised them great wealth and fame if they would advise them on how to run a government to benefit the politician with no talent to sell. Scholars, not wanting to miss an opportunity for gain, sold their knowledge to the tax-and-spenders. Up to this point, only a few scholars, politicians, military men or businessmen who had considerable talents achieved this status of fame and power, with the exception of a few scoundrels who had no morality at all like the western outlaw or the generals who slaughtered the natives in their villages. Morality and big government were the key words received from the scholars. The politicians were also taught that history shows only strong individuals could rule a We nation and that it was impossible to rule a nation of individuals. Thus the untalented politician must empower himself. I have power over myself, whereas We are ruled.

After World War I, Prohibition, the Great Depression, World War II, the Korean conflict and the Vietnam conflict, the politicians should have been satisfied. Sixty years of war and strife, but that was not enough to kill individualism. We must have more wars. Small recessions caused by political involvement was not paying off well enough. But We were running out of small foreign countries to bomb. What to do? Why not take advantage of the differences in the individuals in this country and wage war on ourselves? We could have serve wars going on at once on different fronts. Thus the politicians called in the generals in charge of warring against ourselves, those of the same character We called in on the natives.

There has always been a slight difference between Democrat and Republican beliefs in how government could best control individualism. This had to be widened with issues. And there was always the possibility that those elected to positions in government and who had no knowledge of this war on individualism would ruin everything. But what to We do if people start forming new political groups that would favor individualism? We enlisted the services of the press without their realizing they were aiding. Through them, We could kill all opposition. And if there happens to be a highly regarded individual among those in the press who attempted to expose the politicians, We could either hire him or discredit him. Problem solved.

The race to a We nation was in full swing. The ruling of the people was guaranteed. One general would take on race relations and make it worse. Another would take on poverty and make it worse. And so forth. But these issues take time, so We first had to dismantle the Bill of Rights. We took on the Fourth Amendment first, using the strength of individualism and morality to accomplish this end. The I's had a hard time arguing against emotional issues presented as moral obligations. We blamed the competence of law enforcement to allow illegal searches and seizures. We subsidized birth rates to those We chose to push over the edge into criminal activity and welfare. We had to provide goods to sell which We then outlawed through legislation, creating a national crime wave. The work of the uninformed legislators was to go forth among the population and sell the idea that any problem was a national problem. Both Republicans and Democrats had magnitudes of uninformed legislators, so making sure every individual heard the propaganda was easy enough. The state controlled the schools, so the teaching of We as a substitute for I was easy.

There you have it. That's how the war on poverty, the war on private property and the war on drugs became the three major battles against individualism.

JAMES NALL

Marble Hill