An interesting theme. however the interpretation of dbh is spot on. elaboration from me probably unnecessary:

First point, liberty induces a duty - agreed no, an individual does not have to be responsible to themselves. or at least gov should not impose that. But, each has the obligation of reciprocity, that they do not intrude into any one else's liberty. This is what gov should enforce.
Your second point- yes, the liberty to put a noose around your neck does not impose an obligation on others to remove it by force, but you may be forceably stopped from that in a crowded theater or at a street intersection.
'People deserve liberty whether they are responsible or not' yes, this is similar to freedom of speech for those we detest.

CG- a rare endorsement of your opinions from me. Well put.

I agree with the entire article, but it sounds funny when he talks about not being rude to the police. There's not being rude, and then there's not robbing a store, punching a cop, and grabbing his gun. That's way past being rude.

Not at all. We must be very clear, otherwise progressives will be sure to pounce. :)

Yes. I quite agree. It does not require action, only restraint from particular actions. In a way, one might loosely consider the restraint a responsibility, or a duty... although I loathe to use the word duty...

OA, you're very welcome. I hope I didn't sound pedantic.

Excellent

Absolutely, but that is not an affirmative duty it is a prohibition from certain actions.

Hello Zenphamy,
Quite right. An unfortunate choice of words on my part. They are inalienable... inherent in your existence. No person or government has the power or right to grant them. They just are.
Thank you for allowing me to correct and clarify.
Best regards,
O.A.

OA; I don't think liberty can be 'granted'. Then it's no longer liberty. You are born with liberty, it can only be given up or taken away, but under natural rights, it's a birthright.

Liberty doesn't 'require' personal responsibility--it is personal responsibility--it's not a separate concept. Trying to split up and parse liberty into different aspects sounds a lot like an apple without skin and a core.

Hello dbhalling,
I can see what you are getting at. I would suggest that everyone should be granted Liberty in the way that they should be considered innocent until proven guilty, but I would add that if they violate someone else's rights, then they should be held responsible for the repercussions. That is personal responsibility of a sort: is it not?
Respectfully,
O.A.

There are two ways to take the idea that liberty requires responsibility. One is that liberty induces a duty and the other is that it is just a fact that if people do not act responsibly then liberty will not last. It is contradictory to say liberty induces a duty. People deserve liberty whether they are responsible or not.