It may be worth noting here that responsiblity is thought based, that's all. You have this idea of what is responsible behavior for a person, whether that's in a particular relationship like parent-child or employer-employee or just as a member of humanity, it doesn't matter. If you are going to identify with thought structure, then yes it would be nice to have some responsiblity.
In contrast, the idea we have from the spiritual people in regards to self has interesting implications on the matter of responsibility. Buddhists says there is no self, the Advaitists say there is only the Self, and you got a guy like Chuang Tzu saying no-self is true self. Then we have Jesus who says love your neighbor as yourself, and that has more to say about responsibility. Of course it isn't a projection like everyone should become Christians, but it has more to do with your sense of self. Naturally, if you have no idea what that is, you would probably not trust it like people tend to do with unknowns. But just imagine if you actually consider someone as your self, which is pretty much the same as love, do you even need some idea of responsibility? You don't tend to harm yourself or do things you don't want to - although it has been known to happen. People even have divisions and conflicts within themselves, which is why this teaching often do not make sense. One thing that comes to mind is how Paul talked about beating himself into obedience and such. Still, we don't really think in terms of one part of us is responsible to another part, it's all one. So from this perspective you can see it is much simpler than all the conditions that are implied in responsibility. There is a natural harmony because there is re-spect, in the sense of seeing others as your self - the self nature that is free to express however it wants, which at the same time also re-spects others in the same way.
