Wait a minute – Radical responsibility
Last Sunday, YouGov conducted a survey, incorporation with The Danish Heart Foundation, regarding the Danish attitude towards smoking in cars where children are present. To my surprise, the survey showed that three out of four where in favor of a legislation that would make it illegal for anyone to some in a car where children is present. I am not astounded that people in Denmark are opposed to the idea of children exposed to second-hand smoking, I where astounded that people believe that we need a law, where common sense where suppose to be applied. But why is it, that it seems we in society now feels the need to regulate even the most basic social interactions?
In the summer of 1989, Francis Fukuyama wrote a famous article titled “The End of History?” In the magazine ‘The National Interest’. In this article he is questioning if history it self is dead, or more exactly if history has lost it’s meaning for sociality today, in the same way as had God lost his meaning when Nietzsche declared him dead in 1885. If Fukuyama is right and history has lost its meaning then one of the implication of such an event, would be a radical liberation of human kind. Because if history has lost its meaning then neither culture nor tradition would be able to dictate what is right what is wrong, nor what is good, or what is bad. And without any authoritarian source the individual can only make those judgments in the moment, despite any previous or further judgments. This is what I would call a radical freedom. But, freedom and judgment also require responsibility, for without responsibility freedom, and judgment becomes pointless. Therefor it would also reasonable to say that radical freedom requires radical responsibility.
History is full with examples of human societies that have rebelled against authoritarian source, in the pursuit of freedom, and every time society have naturally moved towards a new authoritarian source to replace the old and discarded one. So it seems that humans have some difficulties managing the responsibilities that comes with freedom, and therefor goes looking for a new authoritarian source that can provide then with answers to what is right and wrong, good, and bad. This would also explain why it is that we today see a higher and higher cry for more and more regulation of even the most private and basic social interactions. We do not trust our neighbors to be able to make the right judgment.
But, what is the alternative if we, as humans, cannot manage the responsibilities, and we will rebel against the next authoritarian source? The only logical solution would be to become the authoritarian source. But not in the sense of classical liberalism where individual is responsible for him or her own life, but to let one's voice be heard, and proclaim what is right and wrong, and what is good, and bad. So instead of asking the legislators to regulate your neighbor, YOU should walk over to him and tell him that smoking in the car with his child next to him, is wrong.
