Liberty and Responsibility

George Bernard-Shaw, author, playwright and source of many a fine quote, said, “Liberty means responsibility. That is why most men dread it.” We have focussed very hard on the former during the last century, making great progress. Never before, in the West at least, has the law better protected the individual’s rights and freedoms. However, have we neglected that word of dread, responsibility, and thus undermined our liberty? I won’t sit on the fence: I believe we have.

What do we mean by responsibility when aligning it with liberty? Well, civilisation is a social contract and you’ve signed-up whether you know it or not. We’ve agreed to pool our resources in return for security and the outputs and benefits of civilisation i.e. surplus food, manufactured goods etc.. Laws and taxes are established to define and pay for that security and the allocation, and the citizen takes on responsibilities to obey the laws and contribute to the tax. This often results in an imperfect outcome, those in power abusing their authority, the balance between what is given falling short of what you get out. In such cases, people often rebel in protest or are kept under the yoke by oppression. Liberal societies have redefined this relationship, adding a new clause to the contract, because the individual receives generous freedoms in exchange for responsibilities (in much the same way as a parent might agree with their maturing teenage child that they can go to the party but they mustn’t drink alcohol and must be home by a certain time). Liberty is not a panacea, affording equity. It allows, combined with democracy, the individual some choice in the uphill struggle that is life and a part-ownership of their society.

Now, on one level, the breadth of that choice may vary dependent on personal circumstances: poverty narrowing it, wealth broadening it. But the state can help create an artificial stimulus to minimalise the difference. By this I mean free education, free access to healthcare (in the UK), tarmac roads to travel freely and laws enshrining freedoms and equality. In return, the state expects something from its citizens. Every parent has a responsibility to ensure their offspring go to school and live in a environment conducive to learning (i.e. reading to their children), that they have a healthy diet and are active to live a long and productive life, and every individual has a responsibility to use those freedoms and advantages in the spirit they were created and pay towards those tarmac roads. Thus the benefactor of liberal civilisation is able to offer something into the mix. Once those responsibilities are neglected, choice narrows (for the individual and wider society) and our liberties become more restrictive.

Yes, it is more complex than this and not always as balanced. But it is patronising to think most can’t utilise such opportunities to help minimalise disadvantages, just as it is ridiculous to think those born with the widest choice are all committed to these responsibilities. Indeed, it is the abundance of liberty, the downhill choice, that can undermine responsibilities, the uphill choice. You have the freedom to choose any food to eat. Why not your favourite: that naughty chocolate bar and the burger? You make a similar choice the following day and the next. Soon that freedom to choose comes at a cost, as your health deteriorates and, after many years making poor choices, you’re no longer able to eat that sugary snack or cholesterol bomb because it might kill you. That, in a nutshell (coated in honey), is the liberty/responsibility argument and the consequence of getting the balance wrong. It isn’t whether you are overweight or not (some don’t have a choice), it is if poor choice management caused a worsening situation because you had no incentive to manage it. Has modern society become bloated on its liberties, with too many choices and thus de-incentivised to manage those choices for the greater good or is it just a case of rebalancing our responsibilities?

You can see how this is played out in another apparent trivial example (it is with the small and trivia things that we can best demonstrate we care not just for ourselves). Cars are a wonderful modern symbol for freedom. Who could have dreamt in the Victorian era that most people, rich and poor, would have the choice to travel anywhere, at any time, across the country and beyond in their own vehicle? But cars can be dangerous things and a great deal of responsibility is required to drive one. The design of cars allows us the freedom to drive at a variety of speeds and the faster you go the quicker you arrive at your destination: an appealing outcome. It also increases the risk of an accident with deadly outcomes. So, tests and laws exist to temper our inclination to drive dangerously and that is not for the benefit of just the driver, but other road users and pedestrians. Despite those laws, the choice still exists to push the pedal to the metal. Only a sense of responsibility for your own well-being, and that of others, ultimately restrains the good driver (with a fear of a fine or imprisonment to sharpen the mind). Again, it is the ‘fruit and veg’ option of driving with restraint and consideration for the benefit of all, or the ‘sugar-snack’ choice, thinking of nothing but short-term, personal needs. We might say, I’m a good driver, there’s no one about, who is going to care if I do forty in a thirty mile an hour zo… BANG! The child comes out of nowhere, chasing a ball. You had no chance of avoiding them: they had no chance of surviving a forty mile an hour collision.

Once society has lost the will to challenge such behaviour, then more follow the poor example, exploiting their liberties, discarding their responsibilities. The problem grows. And I believe society has generally lost its confidence to challenge, preferring the easy choice of turning the blind eye. So, if we are bloated on liberties, what do we do about it? Taking away liberties is a serious and tricky business, prone to causing social unrest. Incentivising is the more amenable route, but no less tricky. Perhaps you should earn some liberties through responsible behaviour? We already remove some for irresponsible behaviour (prison). Even that though risks creating a fractured society - which divisive ‘elite’ decides who has met the right level of responsible behaviour to join the fully free club? Strengthening accountability sounds sensible but laws already exist for most walks of life. So, maybe a larger police force to ensure enforcement? That costs money and doesn’t sound very conducive for liberty. What about education? Yes, that would help but what about those not taking responsibility and neglecting theirs and their children’s education? It’s a tough one and I don’t have the answer, though would like to see the word responsibility used far more, with people having to demonstrate it whenever they play the liberty card.

What I do know is this disregard for societal rules that protect others in favour of gaining an individual advantage is a risk to liberty. It may start small, with poor parking, failure to clip your hedges at your border or dropping litter, an anonymous insult via social media, hedonistic fun at another’s expense or shoplifting with the excuse that the supermarket can afford it, but we neglect our responsibilities at our peril, creating a pseudo-society of entitled individuals. Adults are little more than big children with responsibilities and experience. Once they forsake those responsibilities, there is little to separate them and there is a reason we don’t let our children have certain liberties, such as to vote, drive, drink alcohol or marry. And never before has society and civilisation needed to behave so responsibly - our existence upon our planet is at stake. Having gorged on the naughty carbon-stuff for so long, climate-change threatens our very liberties. It’s time we grew up and took responsibility!

Nathaniel M Wrey