Liberty vs responsibility

Liberty v/s Responsibility Liberty is the close valued and sought after outcome of both political society. It is a mark of a productive and prosperous society where sight use up love a set of fundamental rights for e. g. - right to free speech, fair trial, and so forth On the other hand accessible tariff towards others and sensationself unites the community and increases social well-being. Various political philosophers take a leak come up with different slipway to prioritize 1 over the other and some have believed to pick out a equilibrate amid the two.This leads to an interesting political debate that at what point we draw a line etween liberty and debt instrument, where in we have maximum liberty and minimum responsibility. In this paper I verify the libertarian political thought which resolves this debate by striking a ok balance between liberty and responsibility. To support my argument, I fancy the ideas of seat Locke who was a 17th century classical liberal philosopher (for first agreement) and oft of libertarian political thought is inspired from his works. For second causality I apply the ideas of libertarian philosopher Friedrich Hayek.Towards the end I discuss the principles of libertarianism which clearly address this conflict. The first reason is the primary reason why pack have desire to scribble or plunder and that reason is scarcity. Scarcity is overly the main reason why we have to follow a set of rules and act responsibly. If at that place were no scarcity, and then there would be a surplus of goods and resources for e genuinelyone and any someones wishes and desires would be fulfilled no matter how unlimited they were and his/her actions would have no consequence on anybody else. But we do live in a world where there is scarcity and that kittynot be avoided.So, we have to interact and change goods with one another and that involves a set of rules for social conduct. In this context, ass Locke believed in the rig htful accumulation of property (scarce good) by mixing industry with natural resources (Nozick 175). He didnt believe in accumulation of property via coercion, takeoff or theft. As far as the extent of accumulation is relate he believed that too much property should not be consumed that very little is left for others because that would hinder someone elses right to accumulation of snobby 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 legitimate set of responsibilities that deal 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 know the liberties granted by the social contract. Its all-important(prenominal) to note that the responsibilities are best that if there are more or less responsibil ities there leave be less to no liberty.The second reason is that responsibility is important for liberty to exist is that it encourages good decision make by qualification people accountable for their actions. Friedrich Hayek in his book Constitution of Liberty said that a free society depends more than any other on people being held responsible 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 will help him make better decisions. Additionally, if the person doesnt suffer the consequences, he/she will 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 latters freedom. For e. g. - if the government decides to bailout a firm which didnt make right decisions, then the government will stuff the company to take some hard decisions which might go against the interests of the people in that company.So, learning 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-hostility principle and the preservation of undivided 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 ach ieve a specific outcome unlike a eviathan government. At the sane quantify the laws that it places are minimal and only lead to a further expansion of liberty among all. One doesnt want too many laws because that leads to a right on government where there is no liberty and one also cant fill in 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 someplace 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 cosmos from the presence of the latter.