Rights, Freedom, and Responsibility

In its purely individual context, responsibility is either half-baked, or a very bourgeois concept. It's bourgeois because it often only focuses on individual responsibility, when there is also mutual responsibility, and the fact that we have responsibility for each other in society.

It's also bourgeois, because in its individual context, it is often preached by very middle-class and privileged people in society, who know nothing about being oppressed and powerless, and what it's like to be poor and without the basic rights and freedom to make our own choices.

Responsibility is often half-baked, because it can be used or misused to deny a persons rights and freedom. I would argue that in order for a person to have responsibility, they must first and foremost have rights and the freedom to make choices. Otherwise, it is just a self-righteous and idiotic preaching, and makes no sense at all.

New Labour say they believe in rights and responsibilities, but sometimes this can mean putting responsibilities before rights, when it just doesn't make sense for someone to be responsible, if they also have no rights, freedom, choices, and power.

Sometimes, responsibility is only preached to the victims in society, of things like abuse, whilst those people in authority who abuse their power, are not seen as having irresponsible power and authority. It seems that those who are abused, can be very easily accused of not being responsible for their actions, whilst abusers can get away with abuse, without also being responsible for their actions.