Estimated Time to Read: 7 minutes
At Texas Policy Research (TPR), we champion the principles that form the bedrock of a free society: individual liberty, personal responsibility, free enterprise, private property rights, and limited government. In an era where government overreach expands with each legislative session, we are compelled to address a profound tragedy unfolding in Texas and beyond. That tragedy is the steady erosion of individual freedoms paired with the abandonment of personal responsibility.
This is not merely a policy disagreement. It is a moral and philosophical crisis that threatens the very essence of what it means to be a Texan, an American, and ultimately a free individual. Drawing from the enduring wisdom of classical liberalism and our own analyses of recent Texas legislation, we aim to point out this tragedy and urge a return to the values that make Texas exceptional.
Thinkers From Classical Liberalism
The roots of this tragedy lie in the gradual shift away from the classical liberal ideals articulated by thinkers like John Locke, whose Second Treatise of Government (1689) proposed that individuals possess natural rights to life, liberty, and property, which governments exist solely to protect. Locke warned, “The end of law is not to abolish or restrain, but to preserve and enlarge freedom.” Yet, in modern times, we see laws and regulations that do the opposite, encroaching on personal choices under the guise of public good. This loss of freedom is tragic because it diminishes the human spirit, turning self-reliant citizens into dependents of the state.
Consider the principle of personal responsibility, a cornerstone of classical liberalism echoed by Adam Smith in The Wealth of Nations (1776). Smith argued that individuals, pursuing their own interests in a free market, inadvertently benefit society as a whole through an “invisible hand.” But when governments intervene excessively, through mandates, subsidies, or prohibitions, they erode this responsibility. People begin to expect the state to solve problems that were once handled by families, communities, and personal initiative. The tragedy here is twofold: not only does it foster dependency, but it also stifles innovation and moral growth. As Friedrich Hayek noted in The Road to Serfdom (1944), “The more the state ‘plans’ for the individual, the more difficult planning becomes for the individual himself.” This central planning mentality has infiltrated even our state policies, leading to a culture where accountability is outsourced to bureaucrats rather than internalized by citizens.
TPR Analysis
At TPR, our evaluations of bills in the 89th Texas Legislature highlight this erosion. Below are just a few examples of a particular note:
- House Bill 149 (HB 149), authored by State Rep. Giovanni Capriglione (R-Southlake), from the 89th Legislative Session relates to the regulation of the use of artificial intelligence systems in this state, providing civil penalties and establishing a comprehensive regulatory framework under a new subtitle for Artificial Intelligence Protection. In our analysis, we recommended a Vote No; Amend, concluding that “the bill presents structural, fiscal, and regulatory concerns that outweigh its current benefits.” While well-intentioned in seeking to protect consumer rights and promote transparency, HB 149 “introduces sweeping new responsibilities for state government… create a new regulatory architecture with broad, long-term implications,” including the establishment of the Texas Artificial Intelligence Council, new enforcement powers for the Attorney General, and administrative oversight that “open the door to bureaucratic mission creep” and “contradicts limited-government principles.” It imposes a substantial taxpayer burden with a negative fiscal impact of more than $25 million through the 2026–27 biennium and recurring costs over $10 million annually, driven by new state employees, enforcement systems, and infrastructure. On free enterprise, we noted that the bill “could deter innovation and entrepreneurship… stifle the competitive, decentralized environment” by imposing layered compliance burdens, documentation mandates, and vague definitions that create legal uncertainty, particularly for small businesses and open-source developers, potentially leading to consolidation among large firms and undermining Texas’s pro-innovation environment. Regarding individual liberty, some language “remains vague and could chill lawful speech or development activity,” especially broad definitions around manipulation or viewpoint bias that risk restricting technological use cases or speech protected by the First Amendment. It also raises concerns over private property rights by potentially limiting the legal use of publicly available datasets for AI training. Overall, HB 149 risks expanding government authority and chilling innovation in ways inconsistent with classical liberal values.
- House Bill 1 (HB 1), authored by State Rep. Drew Darby (R-San Angelo), from the second special session of the 89th Legislature, known as the Youth Camp Alert, Mitigation, Preparedness, and Emergency Response (Youth CAMPER) Act, our analysis recommended a Vote No; Amend. While the bill’s intent to improve safety at youth camps following the tragic July 4, 2025, Guadalupe River flooding is understandable, we criticized it for expanding the state’s regulatory footprint too far, too fast. The legislation imposes detailed emergency planning mandates, infrastructure requirements (e.g., redundant broadband, weather radios), and enforcement powers on the Department of State Health Services, including civil penalties up to $1,000 per violation per day. We highlighted concerns over individual liberty, noting that “this could place camps in conflict with their own privacy policies or religious commitments,” encroaching on freedom of association and operational independence without exemptions for faith-based groups. On personal responsibility, we observed that it “substitutes state judgment for individual and institutional responsibility,” diminishing private initiative in risk assessment. It also burdens free enterprise, particularly small or rural camps, and encroaches on private property rights through compelled alterations and disclosures, all while adding fiscal costs (approximately $5.43 million negative impact for 2026–27). This sets a precedent for broader state control over private associations, risking future expansions into areas like homeschools or church groups.
- House Bill 186 (HB 186), authored by State Rep. Jared Patterson (R-Frisco), from the 89th Legislative Session, which seeks to prohibit individuals under the age of 18 from accessing social media platforms in Texas, drew our recommendation of No. Aimed at addressing mental health concerns for minors, the bill requires platforms to verify users’ ages and allows parents to request account deletions, treating violations as deceptive trade practices. However, we critiqued it for infringing on individual liberty by imposing a blanket ban that substitutes government judgment for the rights of families and young people, treating all minors the same without regard for maturity or parental consent. As we stated, “the government substitutes its judgment for the individual rights of families and young people.” It erodes personal responsibility by removing parental discretion, despite existing tools for families to manage online access, noting that “Rather than empowering parents to guide their children’s internet usage, the bill removes parental discretion entirely.” The measure burdens free enterprise with costly age-verification requirements, compels businesses to alter their operations, expands limited government by regulating online speech, and risks constitutional challenges while increasing privacy vulnerabilities. Protecting children is vital, but as we emphasized, “the solution lies in supporting families with tools, education, and voluntary industry standards, not in empowering the state to dictate private online behavior.”
Conclusion
Our methodology at TPR is rooted in liberty principles, evaluating every bill against criteria like: Does it expand or restrict freedom of speech, religion, movement, association, or privacy? Does it promote self-governance and individual accountability? This approach reveals a pattern: too often, legislation veers toward collectivism, diminishing the role of the individual.
The ultimate tragedy of losing individual freedoms and personal responsibility is the transformation of society from one of opportunity to one of entitlement. Classical liberals envisioned a world where individuals thrive through voluntary exchange and self-determination. Instead, we risk a dark future where government dictates choices.
In Texas, policymakers and citizens should heed the warnings of classical liberalism. The loss of freedoms is not inevitable; it is the result of complacency. By recommitting to personal responsibility, through education, policy reform, and vigilant advocacy, we can reverse this tragedy.
Texas Policy Research relies on the support of generous donors across Texas.
If you found this information helpful, please consider supporting our efforts! Thank you!
