Many libertarians and libertarian-leaning people believe that the best way to enforce responsibility is to make people bear the costs for their own mistakes. Don't enforce extra penalties for not behaving in 'approved' fashion, but don't try to reduce he naturally-occurring consequences of people's actions either.
Nonsense.
Only like the parts of the Constitution that don't say that pot is illegal.
Um, that would be all the parts of the Constitution.
If being absurd is the objective, I would then propose, that conservatives want only that freedom that is free, and only if they can sell it at a good price.
Libertarians only want freedom for the property owner, only when he is on his own land.
Liberals want freedom to use everything that is not free, without any regard for those who pay for it.
Actually, this description best applies to conservatives, as it best balances with the description given liberals by the author. Also a marginal number of liberals would believe it to be true.
Actually, this would be the authoritarian type of person. My reasoning is the authoritarian makes you and me responsible for the wrongdoings of others.
Responsibility without freedom is when alcohol is outlawed because some people can't hold their liquor. You and I may never have been irresponsible, but that doesn't matter. Because some people will misuse a thing, that thing should be banned for all. Because some people exceed the speed limit, all automobiles will have govenors installed. Because some people don't have good money management skills, the government will manage all pensions and healthcare. Because some people overeat and become fat then caloric intake should be regulated. Because some people misuse firearms, no one shall be allowed to own them. This is responsibility without freedom because people are responsible for the folly of others. We are not given a chance to prove responsibility, because we are already responsible for those people who aren't. In this condition there is no need to grow up because everything is planned out. No one willgrow up because the experience of learning from choices is removed. What is there to learn when all choices are removed? Ergo, a society of children.
This contrasts with freedom without responsibility, in which the government shields people from the negative consequences of their actions. In this condition people have free food and free housing and free medical care. It doesn't matter how well or how poorly people manage their own affairs because the government is going to take care of them regardless. In this system people can eat until they are fat and the government will take care of their needs. No one needs to save money or plan for the future because the government is going to take care of them. In this condition people have license (not freedom) to do as they will and they are insulated from the wrongs. Vice is no longer its own punishment. Likewise in this condition there is no need to grow up because the consequenses are separated from the causes. No one will grow up because nothing is taught, what is there to learn with actions and consequences have no relation to each other? Again, a society of children. Note that authoritarianism is closely related to this.
It doesn't matter which method is used, in both conditions people are divorced from suffering the consequences of their acts. In authoritarianism the choices themselves are removed to eliminate the chance bad decisions will be made, and in left-license the results of bad decisions are corrected after the fact. But the results are the same: people are not free. They do not really have liberty either way because as you rightly put it freedom comes with responsibility. Freedom without responsibility is the condition in which people cannot learn from their mistakes and responsibility without freedom is the condition in which people cannot make bad decisions. In the end people learn about those things to which they are exposed, on one hand they learn to not think and on the other they learn to not care.
I consider constitutional conservatism and libertarianism to be essentially the same animal. I know that there is plenty of disagreement with this, but I consider the constitutional conservative at the very least my ally against the authoritarian socialist, if he refuses to be my brother. Brothers you are in my opinion. For myself to be called a republican on drugs is simply a part of sibling rivalry. We pummel each other a lot but when someone outside the family threatens us we close ranks.
Freedom with responsibility does not simply encompass keeping my house within community standards. This is an over simplification to the point of being useless. Freedom with responsibility means that I have a propert right to my house and land. I have the freedom to keep large dogs on my property, but if one of them escapes and attacks an innocent person I must be held accountable for murder. Freedom with responsibility means I may drive a fast sports car but I face criminal negligence at a minimum and murder if I kill someone. Freedom with responsibility means I may go to a bar and drink beer, but I may be pulled over and thrown in jail for many years if I am unable to drive. Freedom with responsibility means I may own firearms and be proficient with their use but if I accidentally kill someone I face manslaughter or if I meant to do it I face the capital of all punishments.
Freedom with responsibility does not mean that I have to conform to community standards, only the law under the constitution. However, this does not mean that I will not suffer the consequences of my careless acts. If through my carelessness I lose my job and I lose my wife, then that I have brought it on myself. If I don't suffer the consequences of these bad decisions I am not free, but likewise if I do not have the freedom to make these bad decisions in the first place I am not free either. In the condition of freedom without responsibility the wrongness of vice is countered by the ministrations of the state, while in responsibility without freedom the choice to indulge in a vice is already countered before the fact. I believe freedom with responsibility means that vice is its own punishment. A drunkard at home suffers from his vice, he has made the decision to drink to excess. However, one he steps behind the wheel he is a criminal and should pay the price for his crimes. Freedom and responsibility means that vices and crimes are both wrongness, but vices bring their own punishments whereas crimes bring the punishment of the law.
So, I would break this discussion down as:
Authority - responsibility without freedom
In liberty - freedom with responsibility
License - freedom without responsibility
Constitutional conservatives and libertarians may dicker over the trivialities, but the socialists and communists are on either sides.