A question on dieological consistency

[Machjo]

I was wondering your thoughts on this question. Let's say a left-leaning voter, candidate or MP, MPP, city councillor, etc. argues that the more fortunate members of society have a responsibility towards the less fortunate memebrs, and so are expected to pay more taxes or abide by other rules in consideration of the needs of the less fortunate, then should he not also insist that the poor and less fortunate have a responsibility towards their fellow man too? For example, if I'm responsible to help a poor person with his educaiton to reintegrate in the community, does that person allso not have a responsibility to study hard, take care of his health, etc. too. so as to not add a further burden to my taxes for health care costs, etc. for example?

And inversely, if a right-leaning or more libertarian candidate, MP, MPP, city councillor voter, etc. insists that we should all have the freedom to do what we want, smoke, drink, etc., with no consideration for otehrs, then does it not stand to reason that we also have the freedom to not pay for his health care costs, etc.

In otehr words, if we insist that A has an obligation towars B, then B must also have an obligaiton towards A. It can't be a one-way street. And inversely, if A has no obligation towards B, then why should B have any obligation towards A. One can't take a socialist position one way and then a libertarian one the other way. Clearly it ought to go both ways to be fair.

I'm not taking ideological sides here. Whether one is right leaning or left leaning, all I'm asking for is ideological consistency.

Of course the same applies to the right. For example, if A has an obligaiton to pay for national defense to protect B, then certainly B has an obligation to ensure A has something to defend too.

Again, this is not ideological in favour of either side, but merely saying, whatever side one takes, would a principled stance need to be a consistent one?