Today is Independence Day here in the good old USA, and while most people are grilling hot dogs or arguing over whether fireworks are patriotic or just a noise complaint waiting to happen, I've been thinking about something a little deeper: independence of thought.

The American Revolution didn't just happen because of taxes or tea. It was born out of Enlightenment thinking - critical reasoning, skepticism, the idea that authority should be questioned, not blindly obeyed. Jefferson, Franklin, Adams... they were nerds. Philosophers. Writers. Dudes with powdered wigs and strong opinions about Locke and natural rights. And they believed you should think for yourself, not just do what the king says because the king says so.

I see it all the time: people chasing the latest tech trend because someone on YouTube said it's the future. Or abandoning perfectly good tools - like Microsoft Access - because some corporate IT manager read an article in 2007 that said it's obsolete. They never question it. They just nod and move on.

Meanwhile, I've spent the last 30 years helping small businesses run like well-oiled machines on platforms like Access. Is it the trendiest tool? Nope. But it's fast, flexible, and stable. And if you understand what you're doing, you can build systems that last decades. I've seen people ditch Access for cloud-based systems that cost five times more and do half as much, just because someone said "that's the modern way." In tech, you have to be curious - but you also have to be skeptical. Ask: Does this solve the problem I actually have? Will it scale? Do I understand how it works? Do I want to be dependent on this ecosystem for the next ten years? (1)

Just as often, I see people stuck in legacy software that no longer serves them. They're limping along with outdated tools, clunky workarounds, or using something like QuickBooks for tasks it was never designed to handle. But they don't question it. "It's what we've always used" becomes the reason they keep fighting the same daily fires. Sometimes independent thinking means leaving a tool like Access. But just as often, it means embracing it - or something else that actually fits your workflow - because it works, even if it's not the buzzword on LinkedIn this month.

I've seen this play out in businesses all the time. A company might be stuck renewing the same overpriced service contract year after year - network monitoring, backup solutions, hardware leases - simply because "that's what we've always used." Nobody ever stops to ask, Do we even need this anymore? Or Is there a better way to do this now? Sometimes a junior admin suggests a cheaper or more flexible alternative, and gets brushed off because it's not the way things have always been done. Independent thought in IT doesn't just mean chasing new tech - it also means having the guts to question old systems that are no longer worth what you're paying for them.

You see this in politics too. Most people stick to their party like it's a sports team. They defend every position, no matter how shaky, just because "that's what our side believes." But some of the most effective political leaders in history were the ones who broke from party lines and thought for themselves. People like Senator John McCain, who was willing to buck his own party when it conflicted with his principles. Or Bernie Sanders, who stayed an independent for most of his career but managed to bring important issues into the mainstream conversation. Whether you agreed with them or not, you can respect the fact that they weren't just towing the line. Independent thinking in politics is rare - but when it shows up, it changes things.

And sometimes independence of thought means questioning tradition - not to tear it down, but to understand it better. A lot of traditions come with the built-in message: "This is true because it's written here." But who wrote it? When? What language? What context? Some of these ideas were written thousands of years ago, in completely different cultures, copied by hand, translated across centuries. If you want to really understand the meaning, sometimes you have to pause and ask: Is this really what they meant? What assumptions did the original author make? What audience were they writing for? That kind of thinking takes effort - and a bit of intellectual humility - but it's the only way to grow. Whether you're studying a sacred text or a 20-year-old business policy, the goal isn't to discard tradition... it's to understand it deeply enough that you can decide for yourself what still holds up.

It shows up in family life too. So many people stick to routines and traditions just because "that's how our family has always done it." But sometimes, tradition turns into obligation. I remember when I had a young family, we were running ourselves ragged trying to hit three or four different holiday dinners - my mom's side, my dad's side, my wife's parents, and sometimes grandparents too. It stopped being joyful and started feeling like a military operation. Eventually, we made the call: we're doing it our way. We're staying home. We're not loading our two kids up in the car and driving 30 miles, often through blizzard-like conditions. If you want to join us, great. But we're starting our own traditions now. And you know what? It was one of the best decisions we ever made. Independence of thought doesn't always mean blowing everything up - it can just mean choosing what works for you, and not letting guilt or expectation make the choice for you.

And of course you knew it was coming: in Star Trek, this kind of independent thought shows up all the time. One of the clearest examples is in Star Trek III: The Search for Spock. After being told by Starfleet Command to stand down and leave things alone, Kirk does the exact opposite. He steals the Enterprise, disables Excelsior, and goes rogue to recover Spock's body from the Genesis planet. Why? Because the order was wrong. He wasn't defying Starfleet out of ego - he was doing what was right, even if it broke the rules. That's the heart of it. You don't get promoted to Captain by blindly following every regulation. You get there by knowing when to think for yourself. Kirk didn't follow orders just because they came from Starfleet Command. When the orders didn't make sense, he questioned them. Sometimes he flat-out refused. Because blind obedience is not the same as honor. You don't get promoted to Captain by outsourcing your judgment to the latest admiral's memo.

So this Independence Day, sure - enjoy the cookout. Light the sparklers. Watch your fingers. But also take a moment to ask: where in your work or your thinking have you just been going along with the crowd? And where could a little independence of thought lead to something better?

Think critically. Question authority. Write your own Declaration.

LLAP
RR

(1) A lot of people who have left Access for something flashier or cloud-based have come back afterwards saying, "you were right, Rick."

P.S. I wanted to add a bit about John Locke for those of you who aren't familiar. He was a real cool dude. Locke was a 17th-century English philosopher - kind of the original open-source thinker. He believed in natural rights (life, liberty, property), argued that governments only exist because we allow them to, and that if they screw it up, we have the right to toss them out. He also believed the mind starts as a blank slate, that we learn through experience, and that truth should be observed and tested - not just accepted because someone in a fancy robe says it's true.

You can draw a pretty clean line from Locke to the Enlightenment... to the American Revolution... to the U.S. Constitution... to Star Trek's Prime Directive... to me explaining to a student why their Microsoft Access app shouldn't automatically trust user input without validation.

Because whether you're running a country, a starship, or a small business database, the same principle holds: don't blindly accept the default. Think for yourself. Test everything. And always ask - does this actually make sense?

P.P.S. So no, the Prime Directive isn't based directly on Locke - but the spirit is related. Both reject the idea of imposing power unilaterally, even if you think it's "for their own good." Locke's about individuals and nations choosing their path without being ruled from above. The Prime Directive is about civilizations doing the same thing - without Starfleet showing up and handing them replicators and warp drives before they're ready.

In short: Locke says don't govern people without their consent. The Prime Directive says don't interfere with a culture that hasn't asked for your help.

Different scale, same respect for autonomy.