For me the word “freedom” has not the value of a starting-point, but rather that of an actual point of arrival.
The word “order” denotes the starting-point. Only on the concept of order can that of freedom rest. Without the foundation of order, the call for freedom is nothing more than the striving of some party after an envisaged end.
In its actual use, the call inevitably expresses itself as tyranny. Whilst I have at all times and in all situations ever been a man of order, my striving was addressed to true and not deceptive freedom. In my eyes, tyranny of any kind has only the value of absolute nonsense. As a means to an end, I mark it as the most vapid that time and circumstance is able to place at the disposal of rulers.[843]—Clemens Wenzell von Metternich (1773-1859)Gentlemen, one must not fall prey to anachronism; it is the most dangerous thing, when it comes to governing. There was a time, without any doubt glorious, in which the conquest of social and political rights was the nation’s prevailing concern. That was achieved and now there are others to achieve. You wish to continue advancing, to achieve things that your parents did not. You’re right. Set aside for the moment the winning of political rights. Now it is time to exercise them. Establish your government, consolidate your institutions, educate yourselves, prosper, improve the moral and material condition of France.[844]— Francois Guizot (1787-1874)
The greatest concern of a good government should be to gradually accustom its citizens to do without it.[845]—Alexis de Tocqueville (1805-1859)
The indirect powers... seized the legislative arm of parliament and the law state and thought they had placed the Leviathan in a harness. Their ascendancy was facilitated by a constitutional system that enshrined a catalogue of individual rights. The “private” sphere was, thus, withdrawn from the state and handed over to the “free”, that is, uncontrolled and invisible forces of society.[846]—Carl Schmitt (1888-1985)
By ‘nationalism’ I mean, first of all, the habit of assuming that human beings can be classified like insects and that whole blocks of millions or tens of millions of people can be confidently labeled ‘good’ or ‘bad.’ But secondly - and this is much more important -- I mean the habit of identifying oneself with a single nation or other unit, placing it beyond good and evil and recognizing no other duty than that of advancing its interests.
Nationalism is not to be confused with patriotism. Both words are normally used in so vague a way that any definition is liable to be challenged, but one must draw a distinction between them, since two different and even opposing ideas are involved. By ‘patriotism’ I mean devotion to a particular place and a particular way of life, which one believes to be the best in the world but has no wish to force on other people. Patriotism is of its nature defensive, both militarily and culturally. Nationalism, on the other hand, is inseparable from the desire for power. The abiding purpose of every nationalist is to secure more power and more prestige, not for himself but for the nation or other unit in which he has chosen to sink his own individuality...[847]—George Orwell (1903-1950)