"The United States was the first country in the history of the world to be consciously created out of an idea -- and the idea was liberty." -- Nathaniel Branden

For over 40 years, psychologist Nathaniel Branden has told us about self-esteem and the crucial role it plays in how we experience our lives.  Self-esteem is the reputation we have with ourselves -- it is what I think of me, not what others think of me -- and entails feelings of self-efficacy and self-worth.  According to Branden, we strengthen our self-esteem with an unreserved commitment to mental clarity and self-examination, which includes six fundamental practices.  He refers to these practices as the "Six Pillars of Self-Esteem," which very briefly are:

1.  Living consciously -- facing facts, refusing to live life in a fog.
2.  Self-acceptance -- being willing to experience who we are, even if we don't always like the experience.
3.  Self-assertiveness -- the ability to stand up for ourselves.
4.  Living purposefully -- developing self-discipline and working for goals.
5.  Integrity -- acting according to our deepest beliefs.
6.  Self-responsibility -- gaining control of our lives by recognizing we are responsible for our choices and actions. [1]

It's this last pillar -- self-responsibility -- that plays a major role in determining the kind of social system we live in.  If we abandon it, we become followers and dependents, turning control of our lives over to others.  If we accept it, our biggest need is to be left free so we can create the life we want.

While an attitude of self-responsibility comes from within us, the social environment we live in can do a great deal to encourage its practice or stifle it.  On his website, Branden includes a chapter from his book, Taking Responsibility: Self-Reliance and the Accountable Life, that discusses the incentives we can create for practicing self-responsibility in child-raising and in society at large.  [2]

He sees the traditional values of individualism, self-reliance, self-discipline, and hard work as arising, in part, from our roots as a frontier society in which everything had to be created.  The sense of community people shared was never a substitute for self-responsibility, however.  Everyone was expected to carry their own weight, and no one was encouraged to claim they had a right to any sort of "entitlement."

The Declaration of Independence set down the principle of inalienable rights, which essentially banned force and fraud from human relationships.  Though never practiced consistently, the principle of inalienable rights defined what America stood for:  "The individual as an end in him- or herself, not a means to the ends of others, and not the property of family or church or state or society."

The key element of inalienable rights, Branden notes, is the fact they are negative in character -- they are not a claim on "anyone else's energy or production."  To Americans in early America, rights meant "hands off."  Though there were institutional injustices -- most conspicuously slavery and legal discrimination against women, as well as government restrictions -- the United States was mostly free throughout the 19th century, resulting in a flood of material production and invention.  "By closing the doors to force," Branden writes, "capitalism threw them open to achievement."

The harsh conditions of life during capitalism's early years were not a failure of freedom, but a result of so little wealth in the world.  Left free, individuals applied their ingenuity to production and raised the standard of living "to heights that a century earlier would have been judged fantastic."

"But there was a price," Branden concedes.  Liberty comes with no guarantees.  It demands self-responsibility.  He reminds us that life itself is a risky business, "and uncertainty is inherent in our existence."  We more readily accept these risks if we have decent self-esteem -- if we feel confident in coping with life's problems.  When self-esteem is low, self-responsibility can be a terrifying prospect.  Instead of freedom, we seek a guaranteed "Garden of Eden" existence, in which our needs are met by others.

The medievalists and the socialists played to this sentiment as each took aim at the quasi-free market in the 19th century.  While the medievalists wanted to abolish capitalism, the socialists wanted to take it over -- "to retain the effects, material prosperity, while eliminating the cause, political and economic freedom."

Rather than offer relief from self-responsibility, capitalism counted on it.  "It was a system geared to self-esteem."

Branden points out that the concept of rights under capitalism produces no "great drain on the public treasury" to secure them.  But as our society became wealthier, people began to want things without having to pay for them.  Eventually, their desires turned into "rights."  Government was the agency that could make this happen.

Branden refers to Peter Drucker's book, "The New Realities," in which the author cites the research of George J. Stigler, winner of the 1982 Nobel Prize in Economics, who found that not one of the government's regulations of the economy ever worked.  Not one.  They either did nothing or achieved the opposite of their intention.

To a bureaucrat, Stigler's findings spelled success.  Government programs aren't created to improve conditions, they're made to entrench them.  Success is measured by intentions, not outcomes.

What has this brought us?  Runaway crime, unfathomable debt, and insensitivity to actual human suffering.  It has fostered widespread cynicism, antagonism between races and groups, and a general deterioration of the quality of life.

Our welfare system tells us we are not responsible for our lives.  Our legal system tells us we are not responsible for our actions -- getting away with murder has never been easier.

We are now governed by pressure groups who use the government to grant them favors at everyone's expense. The founders alerted us to this danger, Branden notes.  "In the Federalist Papers, No. 10, James Madison warned of the threat represented by special-interest groups when democracies are not limited by individual rights. Special-interest groups prevail, he cautioned, because the benefits they receive from the government are concentrated, while the costs they impose on the taxpayers are diffuse."

Branden advocates phasing out all welfare programs in combination with other "political corrections" to minimize stress in transition.  He suggests holding government responsible for every piece of legislation they enact.  If the legislation or agency doesn't deliver within a specified time period, it should be abolished.  But it's hard to see how anything government abolishes wouldn't also be replaced with one more expensive and intrusive.  The state is expert at selling an abysmal failure as a promising undertaking in need of more funding.

He stresses that voluntary action to help those who legitimately suffer is the only form of compassion consistent with the respect due others -- respect for their rights.  He notes the irony and disgrace in calling champions of coercion "compassionate" and "progressive," while labeling those opposed to force as "cruel" and "reactionary."  In my view, only a culture that worships sacrifice could get away with such an injustice.

Most people have trouble thinking about a laissez faire society, Branden admits, because there "are no famous 'authorities' to sanction it.  There is no widely esteemed group in our culture with which such an idea is identified.  It is certainly not 'conservatism.' It has nothing to support it except -- I am convinced -- objective reality."

He believes that a "culture of self-responsibility is not the best chance we have to create a decent world.  It is the only chance."  He notes that people understand individualism and self-responsibility appropriately and practice it correctly -- some of the time.  Our future depends on us doing it more consistently.

Branden's essay is an indispensable introduction to understanding the value of self-responsibility in a free society.

References

[1] Healthy Self-Esteem, Nathaniel Branden, Ph.D., http://www.nathanielbranden.net/ess/ess07.html

[2] A Culture of Accountability, Nathaniel Branden, Ph.D., http://www.nathanielbranden.net/ess/exc02.html