Can True Liberty® Exist Without Responsibility

[Nice Squirrel]

My inquiry begins with the proposed Statue of Responsibility (http://www.sorfoundation.org/).

Statue of Responsibility

While the plans for such a monument are grand and still speculative, the idea is appealing and the question is timeless. Can liberty be maintained without responsibility? And what do we mean by responsibility? How is it managed? Does individual liberty automatically imply an individual responsibility? And what about collective responsibility? (if we are to have collected liberty)

[FatherMithras]

one of my problems with the US is that responsibility is totally ignored in favor of government taking care of everyone, with individual responsibility completely ignored.

[BALDUCCI]

Some of my axioms

Almost all human societies are more responsible than those who govern them, but in general, the level of responsibility in any society is a reflection of the level of responsibility of those who govern them

When political leaders use the word "freedom", they are never talking about freedom. They are justifying their own hold on power and their own policies

"Freedom" can only be defined and understood by the individual i his/her own way. If it is imposed from outside the individual, even if with good intent, it runs the risk of becoming a tyranny.

"Responsibility" is an apect of relationships and interaction. It doesnt exist in an abstract sense, except as a vehicle of propaganda

[James Madison]

My inquiry begins with the proposed Statue of Responsibility (http://www.sorfoundation.org/).

Statue of Responsibility

While the plans for such a monument are grand and still speculative, the idea is appealing and the question is timeless. Can liberty be maintained without responsibility? And what do we mean by responsibility? How is it managed? Does individual liberty automatically imply an individual responsibility? And what about collective responsibility? (if we are to have collected liberty)

I think it is necessary to exercise liberty with responsibility because at times exercising liberty irresponsibly can jeopardize the very existence of the society founded upon liberty and instituted to protect liberty. For example, what if the exercise of free speech legitimately jeopardized the U.S. war efforts against Japan and Germany? I am thinking of the U.S. Supreme Court case of Schenk vs. United States and its subsequent progeny.

What if free speech motivated people to commit acts of violence? What if falsely yelling "fire" in a crowded theater resulted in the death of some civilians which were trampled on by the herd of people rushing to the exits?

Lincoln took drastic measures prior to Congress formally declaring war on the seceding states and afterwards. Some of them were designed to preclude what Lincoln construed as an "irresponsible exercise of liberty" because it threatened the Northern war effort to reunify the Union.

Essentially, I think the answer to your question ultimately depends on the context. In some contexts, liberty without responsibility causes too much harm, not only to individuals but society, and the implication will eventually be a demand for this liberty to be taken away. In other contexts, however, this very same exercise of liberty is not as harmful, and consequently, while disliked, this irrresponsible exercise of liberty can exist.

I think the American experiment is a testament to the fact we can have an irresponsible exercise of liberty and society/state co-exist in relative peace/comfort. I emphasize the word "relative."

[theyeti]

To a certain extent the ideals of the monument are spot-on -- liberty requires constant vigilance. And for a free society to flourish, people must take the responsibility to become politically informed, to vote in elections and plebiscites, to pay taxes and serve on juries, etc.

Unfortunately, in the 40 years since the monument was first proposed, the term "responsibility" has been co-opted by the right-wing douchebag movement as a euphemism for "the poor and disadvantaged should take care of their damned selves, and consumers deserve no protection from predatory business practices". It's a mean-spirited and crass belief system, and doesn't deserve to be celebrated in any form, much less with a monument.

I don't know how the planners of this monument plan to distance themselves from the unfortunate politicization of its name-sake, but if they don't the project is DOA.

theyeti

[toth8]

With liberty COMES responsibility, by recognising the limits to your own freedom and the consequences of your acts.

If freedom has no responsibility, then why penalise criminals? Or others who violate peoples' freedoms?