As America celebrates its independence, an increasing number of Americans are not independent — and to an increasing degree.

Consider what “independence” means.

Strictly speaking, it means totally free-standing, totally self-reliant.

The word can be applied in many contexts. A bank can be independent, meaning it is not part of a chain. A truck can have independent suspension, meaning coils and shocks above each wheel react to bumps in the road on their own.

Then there’s national independence. And there’s personal independence, which, though related, is not the same as national independence.

It should be clear there’s no such thing as complete independence in any context. An independent bank is subject to market forces beyond its control. Independent truck suspensions obey the law of gravity. Nations depend on trade with other nations to obtain goods and to help support their internal commerce. Even hermits depend on rain for water, seed and soil to grow food, air to breathe and all of us depend on government, at least in some ways.

Independence is most often a matter of degree, not an absolute.

Back in 1776 when a bunch of colonists decided to declare “independence,” all they really wanted to do is what that insurance gecko on TV wants us all to do: change providers. Said another way, the colonists wanted to separate from England and empower and unite the 13 states to provide what King George had been providing: laws, courts, roads, military protection. They didn’t want to do away with all government. They wanted to form their own.

This is where personal independence comes into the picture.

The colonists’ main motivation for breaking off was their belief there was too much governing going on, that it was arbitrary and not serving their interests. Their design for a new system, written in reaction to what they had experienced and witnessed, was minimalist. Their government’s powers came to be listed in the Constitution, which was accompanied by a Bill of Rights that identified in more detail (1) what government could not do and (2) what government had to do to protect personal independence.

These promises were necessary to get the basic law approved. It seems very strange now that state legislatures ordained our federal government, but that’s what happened. And it can’t be emphasized enough that the people were highly suspicious. It was not a smooth process. The whole idea was to avoid substituting a “foreign” government that limited personal independence with a “local” government that limited personal independence.

Some tea partiers seem to think otherwise, but we’re not going back to the days of minuscule government. What was unleashed in 1776 with the commitment to maximize personal independence resulted in the greatest expansion of innovation and prosperity in human history. It wasn’t a seamless or wholly moral process. Much wealth was gained on the backs of indentured servants and slaves. Working conditions and pay for wage earners were often abysmal. Whole populations of Native Americans were destroyed or displaced. But steam, electric and fossil fuels were harnessed and used to power inventions of all types. Diseases that had ravaged lives for centuries were wiped out. On balance, it’s been a good 234 years. And it’s because of the good times that there’s no going back.

Where early America had a small population, unlimited national resources and wagon-based commerce, America now has 307 million people, fewer resources and derivative trading on something called the Internet. It is only natural that government has become more involved or “intrusive” in expanding its role as regulator.

The nation can survive a larger and more active government. What the nation can’t survive, however, is the shift in attitude — now gaining ground rapidly — to see government not as a manager, but as a provider.

Next tax year in America, more than half the people will pay no personal federal income tax. The halfway mark has likely already passed in Mississippi. The significance of this is that fully half the people will be dependent on the other half for government services ranging from roads, bridges and the military to individual aid programs. (Not everyone has the power or wherewithal to “hitch up their britches” and maximize their independence. Charity is a good thing; it’s just that government is very bad at providing it.)

The more people who are individually dependent on government — at a loss of their own independence — the less free we are, collectively, as a nation. If we complete the transformation and most see government as a giver instead of a taker, then we will also have lost the sense of self-reliance and creativity that served as our national spark plug for two centuries.

It’s weighty stuff to ponder at a time of national celebration. But people need to think about what’s at stake.