Hi, dh,
You are right. I should have written "... the moral duty to act responsibly ..."
We shall see if I can do better next time.

but they do it anyway, with pleasure and alacrity!!! -- j

I gave away cigars when I "made captain" in the
air force -- really gentle A&C things -- and that's
the only time I've enjoyed them. . you can have
my share;;; enjoy!!! -- j

I am sorry to hear that, John.
I really enjoy a good cigar.
But as I am getting older (or just plain old), I am consciously restricting myself to one a day on weekends.
Be well.

the easy logic is evident in my life::: I smoked a
pack of cigarettes a day for 43 years. . now, I have
emphysema. . personal responsibility reigns. -- j

Freedom without responsibility is freedom corrupted and soon lost. Michael Brown's irresponsible behavior corrupted his freedom and he lost it.

If you have a political duty to act responsibility you do not have freedom or liberty. You have the worst sort of nanny state. If you want to say from an ethical perspective acting responsibly is in your best self interest, that is a different matter

What you are saying when you say you " I can do anything I choose. I may kill, steal, love, support community." What you are talking about is free will not freedom. Even then if you live in a totalitarian state you may not be able to do any of these. You may be incarcerated in a solitary cell. Neither Freedom or Liberty are conditional philosophically. But they may be in reality. We are not discussing how the world is, but how it should be.

Liberty only has meaning when expressed in relation to others. Responsibility, however, can be expressed to others and yourself without endangering your freedom if you are exercising that responsibility freely.

Hello dh,
I think that the duty to act responsibly derives from our nature. We are the only rational animals (conscious individuals) on this planet, but we are also social animals. This implies that we need to coexist. It is the task of the family to educate us, as we grow to adulthood, and help us acquire the concepts necessary to live responsibly in common with others. Through the obligation to live freely without harming others we acquire the duty to act responsibly. Does this make sense to you?
All the best.

I think I see where our disagreement may come. I view freedom as an absolute and liberty as a conditional. I hold the same views on the respective differences between love and like.
I'd like to sit face to face with you some day and dialog....with greatest respect.

You are confusing free will with political freedom.

If you have a duty under liberty then you do not have liberty. If you mean under liberty that you are responsible for your self that is not saying the same thing as REQUIRING responsibility. I am responsible for myself under liberty which means I can act irresponsibly as long as I do not directly hurt someone else. I can drink too much, waste my money on gambling or even choose to terminate my life.

Liberty requiring responsibility is so obvious to me that I have trouble even imagining separating the two. One without the other, either way, cannot exist. In liberty without responsibility, it means that the responsibility belongs to someone else, which means dependency on that someone else, which means liberty is limited to what that someone else allows. If I take responsibility but I have no liberty, it means that I am a slave and the responsibility is actually not mine but is put upon me by my master. How many illustrations of these two scenarios can you find within the politics of today?

Hi db.
If I am free, in it's fullest expression, I can do anything I choose. I may kill, steal, love, support community.....ad infinitum. If my "nature" (very subjective) is that of an "animal"....I take as I need...for my survival. You've seen me mention my legal contestation. I am "free" to do whatever I want to my opponent outside of these parameters of law. I do not do so....that may / will impune my liberty granted by my society and it's respective codes / laws.
This is why I discern difference between the two word-symbols.

I do not agree that there is a distinction between freedom and liberty. This website defines the difference as "One should distinguish between the terms "freedom" and "liberty." Speaking generally, Freedom usually means to be free from something, whereas Liberty usually means to be free to do something, although both refer to the quality or state of being free." I disagree with this distinction and I think making the distinct only obfuscates the issue.

Not being evil is a common sense survival tactic. It's also good for one's own mental health.

sorry john meyers but government does not "feel" anything and it or the people hired to perform functions specified in the laws of the country have no obligation to steal our freedoms i.e. liberty.

White stuff falling from the sky. At least the frozen fog is gone for now.

I'll disagree, respectfully, on liberty being a birthright. Liberty requires interaction with others.....being earned. Freedom is a birthright; to make choices on living or dying, on relationships and choices.

Well put! The simplicity beyond the complexity.

Well put, pirate.

How's the weather?

All actions have consequences.
If reality and reason rule the day, good results are the consequences of good decisions and good actions.
Co-dependency in government is keeping people from reaping what they sow.
Until and unless our government gets back to protecting the innocent and punishing the guilty we are in danger of losing ALL of our liberties to the chaos and confusion of self-righteous and litigious nonsense from those who govern.

A +1, wishing I could do more on the score. A big hug due if we ever meet. This is a multi-decade dialog amidst my family. I'll reference "The Objectivists Ethics" as the most poignant source I've encountered regarding personal / familial / cultural responsibility.

Of course it does.