Genesis of the "NO" Logo
In history there have been two basic forms of social organization: collectivism and individualism. In the 20th and 21st century, collective variations have included socialism, fascism, Nazism, and communism. Under collectivism, a ruling class of “intellectuals”, bureaucrats, politicians and/or social planners decides what people want or what is “good” for society and then uses the coercive power of the State to regulate, tax and redistribute wealth in an attempt to achieve their desired objectives. Individualism is a political and social philosophy that emphasizes individual liberty, belief in the primary importance of the individual and in the virtues of self-reliance and personal independence and responsibility. It embraces opposition to controls over the individual when exercised by the state. The Preamble to our Constitution makes it plain that all power rests originally with the people, as individuals.
The “O” within the circle represents collectivism in its various forms. The “N” represents an emphatic repudiation of collectivism. The red, white and blue circles encompassing the “NO” are emblematic of our Republic. It is the responsibility of the individuals in an engaged and enlightened republic to limit the influence of the government, especially one that attempts to wield power outside the boundaries delineated by the Constitution.
Next Monday, January 17, is the 50th anniversary of President Dwight Eisenhower’s farewell address. The speech is most commonly remembered for President Eisenhower’s warning about the “unwarranted influence” of the “military-industrial complex,” but often left out of the story is Ike’s warning about profligate federal spending as well: “We cannot mortgage the material assets of our grandchildren without risking the loss also of their political and spiritual heritage. We want democracy to survive for all generations to come, not to become the insolvent phantom of tomorrow.” Ike went on to call for “balance in and among national programs” including “balance between the clearly necessary and the comfortably desirable.”
