“Culture” can refer to many things. But for those who work to advance freedom, the primary concern must be how culture shapes individuals who will guard and exercise that freedom.

A national culture that demands personal responsibility is especially vital. Indeed, the American culture rests on the twin pillars of liberty and responsibility, as F.A. Hayek observed in “The Constitution of Liberty.”

“When men are allowed to act as they see fit,” Hayek wrote, “they must also be held responsible for the results of their efforts.”

A free economy and limited government cannot exist apart from a culture of responsibility. Such a culture prizes individuals of strong, noble character. It also encourages institutions that model and nurture good character. These are all around us: families, religious congregations, schools, neighborhood and business associations, trade unions, civic and service clubs. Boy Scouting and Little League, too.

These “little platoons,” as Edmund Burke called them, introduce individuals to the values and ideals of the larger society. They pass the culture of responsibility down through the generations.

Sadly, the culture of responsibility has not fared well. We’ve witnessed a coarsening of public life, a loss of respect for good character and personal virtue and a loss of shame for actions that once brought disrepute.

For example, some say it’s unrealistic to expect young people to abstain from sexual relations until marriage, arguing they can’t live up to that standard. But no one is hurt more by lowered cultural expectations than the young and the children they bring into the world as the result of their decisions.

Fatherlessness is a problem of extraordinary proportions in America: Nearly four out of 10 children are born to unwed mothers. Among black children, it’s seven out of 10.

Children born outside marriage have a much more difficult time getting ahead, research shows. They’re more likely to end up dependent on welfare or in prison. They’re more likely to repeat the cycle of out-of-wedlock childbearing when they reach adulthood.

It’s a vicious circle.

As dependence on the welfare state grows, freedom and responsibility erode. An entitlement mentality spreads. And all too often, the welfare state encourages an unhealthy individualism that shrugs off the responsibility to be our brother’s keeper, leaving it to distant bureaucrats instead.

Economic policy also can erode a culture of responsibility. Many individuals, institutions and policymakers made many poor decisions leading up to the market failures that triggered the recession.

Government remains heavily involved in trying to address those failures and restore the economy. But the dangers of this intrusion are more apparent with each passing day.

When government seeks to protect individuals from the bad consequences of their decisions, it sets aside a vital discipline underlying our economic system. As economist Allan Meltzer commented: “Capitalism without failure is like religion without sin.”

What does it communicate, for example, to the 96 percent of Americans who do pay their mortgage on time when the government rescues those who don’t?

We can still restore a culture of responsibility. We should begin by taking responsibility for our own actions. If we seek freedom, let it begin with each of us modeling self-government in our own lives.

For its part, government should pursue policies that promote personal responsibility. The historic welfare reform act of 1996 required recipients to look for work. It promoted marriage. The success was dramatic: Welfare rolls were cut in half and poverty among black children dropped to the lowest level ever recorded. We must not accept the undoing of those reforms.

Finally, our leaders should be able to explain how freedom and responsibility yield economic as well as moral benefits. A market-based economy depends on virtues and values that bring stability, even harmony, to a multitude of competing interests. The true purpose of free exchange is to make friends of enemies.

Freedom requires a society based on families, schools, churches and neighborhoods — not the “nanny state.”

Our society will be genuinely compassionate when it encourages all of us to look after the welfare of our neediest neighbors. And to do so because we understand our moral obligation, not because the state forces us to pay for social programs that so often do more harm than good.

We not only can halt the drift of the culture. We can build a society that recognizes our most precious resource is the human spirit — and that a spirit of creativity and enterprise can flourish only in a climate of freedom.

Edwin J. Feulner is president of The Heritage Foundation.