Viktor Frankl once recommended that the Statue of Liberty on the East Coast of the United States be complemented by a Statue of Responsibility on the West Coast:
Freedom, however, is not the last word. Freedom is only part of the story and half of the truth. Freedom is but the negative aspect of the whole phenomenon whose positive aspect is responsibleness. In fact, freedom is in danger of degenerating into mere arbitrariness unless it is lived in terms of responsibleness. That is why I recommend that the Statue of Liberty on the East Coast be supplemented by a Statue of Responsibility on the West Coast.
Hmmm, Washington, Oregon and California don’t seem to be places where anyone cares much about responsibility, a least in the coastal regions. Of course, judging by how they vote, the people in New York don’t think much of liberty either. How about moving the Statue of Liberty to New Hampshire, the “live free or die” state?
Where to erect the Statue of Responsibility is a tough question. How about say, Texas. Or Oklahoma. Kansas perhaps. Some place liberals hate, that’s where responsibility resides. I shouldn’t leave out North Dakota. That might be the ideal place for the Statue of Responsibility.
Trouble is, taking either statue off the East and West Coast means neither would be an appropriate beacon for the whole country. That’s all right, though. It would give the United States something to strive for, to bring back the day when it will again be proper, when it will make sense to have these statues on the East and West Coast.