09/04/2025 11:48
The concept of the state has taken many forms throughout history, evolving from authoritarian structures to more liberal governments that emphasize individual freedom. However, the debate continues to revolve around a fundamental idea: what is the right balance between state intervention in the lives of citizens and respect for their personal autonomy. Two models emerge in this context: the “mother” state, which takes charge of many aspects of individual life, and a state that promotes total freedom, leaving citizens full responsibility for their choices.
“Mother” state: characteristics and implications
The term “mother” state refers to a model of government characterized by significant influence over the lives of citizens, often justified by the need to protect collective well-being. This approach can manifest itself in different areas, such as health, education and social security. The state takes a paternalistic role, intervening to ensure that all members of society are protected from external factors that could compromise their well-being.
Welfare policies, for example, are a form of “mother” state. Here, the government is in the business of providing essential services, supporting those in need through assistance programs. While these measures can have a positive impact, they also risk creating dependency in citizens, reducing their motivation to seek autonomy and self-sufficiency.
Furthermore, the “mother” state can limit individual freedom, justifying very stringent regulatory interventions in the name of the common good. Laws that regulate personal behavior, from dietary norms to substance use, are examples of how the state can invade private spaces for reasons deemed valid. Here, the line between protection and oppression becomes increasingly blurred, and individual aspirations can be compromised in favor of a collective vision of the good.
Individual Freedom: The Value of Autonomy
On the other hand, the concept of a state that respects total individual freedom is based on the idea that each person should have the right to self-determination, to make decisions about their own life without external interference. In this model, the individual is seen as a rational agent, capable of making informed choices about their own existence.
Proponents of this approach argue that personal freedom is a supreme value, essential for the development of human potential. When the state refrains from interfering in personal choices, it allows individuals to assert themselves, to make mistakes and to learn from their mistakes. Personal responsibility therefore becomes a pillar of this vision, as each citizen must face the consequences of their actions.
However, this total freedom can bring with it significant challenges. While it allows for individual emancipation, it can also create situations of vulnerability and inequality. Not all individuals start from the same point; factors such as social class, education and economic opportunities influence each person's ability to exercise their freedom effectively. Thus, the absence of state intervention can, paradoxically, perpetuate cycles of poverty and exploitation, denying true freedom to many.
Towards a sustainable balance
The central issue therefore lies in finding a balance between these two extremes. An ideal political system might recognize the importance of individual freedom, while maintaining a certain level of state interventionism to protect citizens' rights and ensure equal opportunities. This balanced approach could translate into policies that not only provide support and protection to the most vulnerable, but also encourage personal autonomy and responsibility.
In this context, the state should play a facilitating role, creating an environment in which individuals are able to thrive without feeling controlled. This could include implementing educational policies that encourage critical thinking and autonomous decision-making, rather than mere dependence on the system. Furthermore, investing in improving economic and social conditions could help level the playing field, allowing everyone to fully exercise their freedom.
Another important aspect of this balance is citizen participation. Encouraging citizens to actively participate in political and social life can help build a community where everyone’s needs and aspirations are heard and respected. In this way, the state can avoid becoming an oppressive entity, instead transforming itself into a partner in the realization of individual and collective progress.
Ultimately, the tension between the “mother” state and individual freedom is not just a theoretical dichotomy but a practical issue that profoundly affects daily life. Recognizing the importance of both approaches and working towards a state model that promotes autonomy without abandoning social responsibility seems to be the most promising path. Only through this synthesis will it be possible to build a society in which each individual can truly flourish, without giving up the support needed in times of difficulty.
