I've always sought autonomy.
But it's taken a long time to define what this means.
You're autonomous when the only restrictions placed on you come from:
(1) Physics
(2) A non-tyrannical legal system
(3) Constraints adopted by choice (not necessity)
You achieve this by having enough resources to meet your needs, or lowering your needs to accomodate your resources.
But for the average Joe with a wife, a dog, and 2.2 kids, becoming a monk isn't exactly an option. So we're left with option A — obtain enough resources.
Which leads us to another problem:
Many conventional paths to wealth come at the cost of autonomy, even if they're lucrative.
We can easily be locked into decades-long ruts by past decisions, especially when our reputations are at stake.
As we specialise, our world-views narrow, and we become more likely to lose contact with reality.
This is extremely dangerous.
When you can't see the world clearly, you'll take instructions from someone who can.
Mix in some questionable incentive structures, and you've got yourself a recipe for dependence.
But it's not a matter of complete self-reliance, either.
Some specialisation is required, and without division of labour, we'd be back to the stone age.
After all, I'm typing this on a computer I didn't design, using software I didn't build, protected by laws I've never had to enforce or revise.
Instead, it's about understanding things at a macro level, and then specialising based on that knowledge.
This gives us three core components of an autonomous person:
(1) Be fiercely autodidactic
(2) Maintain constant contact with reality/free markets
(3) Value morality over freedom, and freedom over status
It's not complete, but it's the best I've come up with so far.