Willem de Vlaming (April 2025)
To better understand aspects of the 21st-century American mindset, I’ve explored it through the lens of “homesteading mindset”
The Homesteading myth has shaped American ideals, especially the belief that ‘freedom means the absence of government interference’, and that ‘success is a solitary, competitive pursuit’. It portrays the homesteader as a rugged individualist, thriving through grit and self-reliance, with minimal reliance on institutions or others. The frontier was mythologized as a brutal meritocracy—only the strong survived. This romanticized: competition and conflict as natural; solidarity and mutual aid as weakness; empathy as a threat to meritocratic outcomes.
Though historically inaccurate, this image remains culturally potent. The ‘Homestead Act of 1862’, which granted land to settlers willing to “improve” it, reinforced a vision of autonomy based on ‘property ownership’, ‘self-sufficiency’, and ‘limited government’. From this emerged some ideological key concepts: 1) Libertarianism: freedom is maximized when the government steps back. 2) Anti-regulation: rules are obstacles to enterprise. 3) Individualism over collectivism: problems are for individuals to solve, not systems.
In this worldview, empathy becomes entitlement, solidarity becomes socialism, and equality efforts are seen as penalizing the "deserving." This supports a moral individualism hostile to redistribution, public welfare, and shared responsibility.
From the 'Homesteaders’ perspective — with its emphasis on individualism, minimal government, and competition — the ‘Rhineland model’ of business and society can seem alien, even threatening. The Rhineland model, common in European countries like Germany, the Netherlands, and parts of Scandinavia, is rooted in: coordinated capitalism, strong social safety nets, and stakeholder-oriented governance. The Rhineland model reflects a worldview where: freedom includes security, markets are social constructs, and economic life is embedded in the common good. These are not just policy differences — they are fundamentally different ethical and cultural assumptions about society.
With a ‘homesteading mindset’, looking at the Rhineland model triggers:
Suspicion because of the Rhineland model’s collective structures. Worker representation on company boards (codetermination). Strong unions and sectoral bargaining. Robust public welfare and health systems. From the American rugged individualist viewpoint, these mechanisms might be seen as: interference in private enterprise; a drag on competition and merit; a breeding ground for entitlement and dependency. There’s a deep-rooted skepticism toward the idea that workers and society should have a say in corporate governance. Business, in the American mythos, is the domain of risk-takers and owners — not a collaborative social institution.
Disbelief that fairness is prioritized over efficiency. The Rhineland approach, which balances profit with social cohesion and equity, is often perceived as: overly cautious, risk-averse, bureaucratically burdened — potentially sacrificing innovation and competitiveness for fairness.
‘Allergic reactions’ seeing the role of government. The Rhineland model sees the government as a partner and stabilizer — setting rules, redistributing wealth, and investing in public goods. Americans influenced by the homesteading myth often view government as: a nanny that smothers initiative, an inefficient or corrupt force best kept at bay, a redistributor of success from the “deserving” to the “undeserving”. As a result, policies that emphasize long-term stability and social responsibility are often rejected in favor of short-term gains and market-driven solutions.
The Rhineland view on the hoemesteaders mindset
From the Rhineland perspective the ‘Homestead’ mindset appears as a romanticized but dangerously individualistic / antisocial worldview — prioritizing personal freedom over social responsibility, and competition over cohesion. It is seen as: 1) unstable, focussing on short-term gains at the cost of long-term societal resilience; 2) socially corrosive: rhe rejection of social responsibility and solidarity undermines trust, equality, and collective well-being; 3) myth-driven: it ignores the structural supports (e.g., government subsidies, cooperation) that made homesteading possible in the first place.
In Rhineland thinking, individual freedom without social responsibility and uquity, is not freedom, but fragmentation. A healthy society (and business) requires regulated markets,, socio-economical equity, shared risk, citizen participation, and inclusive decision-making.