Convenience versus Personal Responsibility
Those who wish to preserve freedom must also be prepared to bear responsibility. Personal responsibility protects against the bureaucratic, paternalistic state. By Karl von Habsburg.
The protection of freedom – alongside the establishment of security and the rule of law – is among the foremost duties of the state and, consequently, of politics. For freedom is, to quote Richard Coudenhove-Kalergi, the founder of the Paneuropean Union, the ideal of Europe. Indeed, he even links the existence of Europe to the existence of freedom: “Europe will endure as long as it continues this struggle; as soon as it abandons this ideal and becomes unfaithful to its mission, it loses its soul, its meaning, its very existence. Then its historical role is played out.”
Equally clear in the fight for freedom and justice is Otto von Habsburg, who led the Paneuropean Union for over 30 years after its founder: “If we were to develop a guideline and a programme for the future, the first thing to clarify is the deeper meaning of politics. This is not the preservation and exercise of power, as most contemporary bureaucrats believe, but service to the eternal values of justice, freedom, and humanity. Their safeguarding is the essence and justification of the state. Politics exists to serve these ideals. This is the perspective into which the means, methods, and programmes of politics must be placed.”
Both quotes make it clear that freedom is not a given. It must be constantly fought for and won. And not only against all sorts of temptations of the totalitarian state, but above all in the confrontation with convenience. Freedom is inextricably linked with responsibility. There is no freedom without responsibility, and responsibility also needs freedom. Responsibility, in turn, is not simply delegable, but represents a challenge for each and every one of us. Personal responsibility means that we do not place our destiny in the hands of the state or bureaucracy, but take it into our own hands. The state is not responsible for our happiness; rather, we ourselves have the right and the duty to look after ourselves.
Reason versus Paternalism
This principle applies above all to democratic systems. Absolutist rulers claimed to be responsible for the welfare of their subjects, and therefore felt entitled to dictate what they should and should not do. The state was organised paternalistically. Coffee sniffers were sent out to prevent the irresponsible subject from consuming this beverage. In contrast stands the personally responsible citizen, who does not call for state regulations and police or other authority controls for everything, but makes decisions for themselves and their family with personal responsibility. The challenge here is that these decisions should not only be reasonable but also not restrict the freedom of others.
One of the few concise definitions of freedom comes from Jean-Jacques Rousseau: “Man is born free, and everywhere he is in chains. The freedom of man lies not in being able to do what he wants, but in not having to do what he does not want.”
However, not everything that may appear to some as a rejection of state measures is personal responsibility. Anyone who refuses to vaccinate their children is not acting reasonably, but is being highly negligent towards their own children and the children of many other families.
Thus, it can also happen that movements in the political sphere appear under the guise of rejecting an authoritarian state, but ultimately are nothing more than a new form of paternalism. A wonderful example of this is the ’68 generation. The ’68 generation came to power with the claim of rebelling against the state. In fact, no generation before them entered state service as unconditionally as the ’68 generation. The march through the institutions was probably one of the most bureaucratic and statist manoeuvres history has ever seen. It was not just about marching through the institutions, but about creating many new bureaucratic and centralist institutions. 50 years later, people still believe that the ’68 movement was a freedom movement. The opposite is true. It created bureaucracy and centralism. Bureaucracy and centralism are twins that lead directly to the loss of freedom.
The Allure of the Welfare State
The greatest enemy of personal responsibility, however, is convenience. It is not only the regulatory zeal of politicians and bureaucrats, but also the convenience of the individual, the call for the state to sort things out (even if, the more tasks it takes on, the more it is doomed to fail), that have pushed the principle of personal responsibility into the background. The welfare state has taken over: a political concept that makes citizens – with their own money, no less – dependent on the state.
However, the success story of Europe, which once led this peninsula west of Asia to become the leading world power, is not due to a paternalistic welfare state. Here one finds a foundation based essentially on the pillars of the rule of law and freedom. In addition, there are other elements such as the importance of the family as the nucleus of society, which was protected by the state but not regulated. On this foundation rest further cornerstones such as private property, personal liability for failure as well as success, and thus private entrepreneurship, which must rely on innovation to be successful. The combination of entrepreneurial spirit, innovative strength, personal responsibility, and the rule of law are the cornerstone of prosperity. It is no coincidence that these principles were able to develop in a culture that is clearly Christian.
The article was originally written for “Couleur”, the magazine of the MKV.
