Liberty vs responsibility

Liberty v/s Responsibility Liberty is the most precious and sought after outcome of any political society. It is a mark of a productive and gold society where people enjoy a make out of aboriginal rights for e. g. - right to free speech, fair trial, and so forth On the otherwise hand social duty towards others and oneself unites the community and increases social well-being. Various political philosophers concord come up with different ways to prioritize one over the other and some birth believed to strike a counterweight amidst the two.This leads to an interesting political debate that at what point we earn a line etween liberty and responsibility, where in we have maximum liberty and minimum responsibility. In this radical I assert the libertarian political thought which resolves this debate by striking a fine vestibular sense between liberty and responsibility. To support my argument, I render the ideas of John Locke who was a 17th century serious music liberal philoso pher (for first reason) and much of libertarian political thought is inspired from his works. For second reason I apply the ideas of libertarian philosopher Friedrich Hayek.Towards the end I discuss the article of faiths of libertarianism which clearly address this conflict. The first reason is the primary reason why people have desire to loot or plunder and that reason is scarcity. Scarcity is also the of import reason why we have to follow a set of rules and act responsibly. If in that respect were no scarcity, indeed there would be a surplus of genuines and resources for everyone and any persons wishes and desires would be fulfilled no matter how immeasurable they were and his/her actions would have no consequence on anybody else. But we do live in a globe where there is scarcity and that cannot be avoided.So, we have to interact and exchange goods with one another and that involves a set of rules for social conduct. In this context, John Locke believed in the rightful acc umulation of property (scarce good) by mixing churn with natural resources (Nozick 175). He didnt believe in accumulation of property via coercion, fraud or theft. As faraway as the extent of accumulation is concerned he believed that too much property should not be consumed that very little is left for others beca utilization that would hinder someone elses right to accumulation of private property.Nozick had given this a term Lockean Proviso (Nozick 175). Applying the Lockean proviso to the conflict between liberty and responsibility, in the presence of carcity, there has to be a certain set of responsibilities that people need to fulfill (mentioned above, Locke called them natural laws (Korab)) mainly including the one where they dont over-consume resources so that less is left for others and at the same time enjoy the liberties granted by the social contract. Its significant to note that the responsibilities are optimum that if there are more or less responsibilities there l eave be less to no liberty.The second reason is that responsibility is important for liberty to exist is that it encourages good decision making by making people accountable for their actions. Friedrich Hayek in his book Constitution of Liberty state that a free society depends more than any other on people being held obligated for their actions (American Spectator) Applying his idea, in lite it one is awarded tor achieving a set ot goals by the proper use of resources he/she was provided with, then that person should also not be helped and made to suffer the consequences of making a bad decision.In the long term, this suffering allow for help him make better decisions. Additionally, if the person doesnt suffer the consequences, he/she exit develop a propensity for xcessive risk taking which wouldnt be good for the society. Another consequence of not taking responsibility is that someone else ends up taking responsibility for it and then that person has a right to curb the latte rs freedom. For e. g. - if the government decides to bailout a firm which didnt make right decisions, then the government will force the company to take some hard decisions which might go against the interests of the people in that company.So, learnedness to take responsibility from bad choices increases self-ownership and thereby upholds ones liberty. It also improves one-self hich is always beneficial towards society. Libertarianism has two main principles the non-aggression principle and the preservation of individual rights and private property (Libertarianism). According to Libertarianism these are the only two responsibilities the person owes to other people in the community. He/she ought not to show aggression and encroach upon any other persons rights in the community.Any responsibility more than that comes at the cost of liberty. Based on the reasons that I gave, Libertarianism strikes a fine balance between liberty and responsibility by not placing laws that achieve a spe cific outcome irrelevant a eviathan government. At the sane times the laws that it places are minimal and only lead to a farther expansion of liberty among all. One doesnt want too many laws because that leads to a powerful government where there is no liberty and one also cant manage not having any laws because scarcity and greed will lead to a state of war of one against all.Libertarianism gives a solution that is somewhere between those two extremes. To conclude, libertarianism believes in the importance of individual liberty which can be found in the fundamental rights that people enjoy and duties/responsibilities hich people are obligated to follow. Its important for fundamental duties to exist because without which liberty wont exist. However, responsibility wouldnt have any meaning in the absence of liberty and that it derives its existence from the presence of the latter.