My answer is different. Individual rights are more important than responsibilities, and believe me I had chance to answer this question long time ago. You may not believe it but your logical reasoning on this issue is 100% copycat from the Marxism-Leninism textbooks that were mandatory study in one country that you would prefer never existed.
Individual rights constitute human nature, that's the essence differing humans from animals. Responsibilities are secondary, i.e. they are invented to protect these rights, or to suppress them, depending on inventors.

>A question: do you agree that rights need to be balanced by responsibilities?
>
>If so, to whom do you suppose that those responsibilities are directed? Not to yourself, presumably.
>
>Assuming that we agree that rights should be balanced by responsibilities, and assuming that we have moved beyond family hamlets into organized societies, then who, at a societal level, should determine the relative rights and responsibilities? Society is of course made up of individuals, but if every individual insists on self-determinism then the correct label is "anarchy" which seems to have been a lousy system historically.
>
>Clearly "somebody" needs to be in charge of balancing rights and responsibilities if society is to remain workable. Religion used to be quite a player in this sphere and still is, but in a democracy, people tend to think that government has a duty in this respect. If not government, then who?
>
>Would you consider that if those with privilege begin to resent government and begin to believe that they have the right to allocate more rights and less responsibilities to themselves, then the result reasonably can be called corrupt?
>
>Of course it is also true that rights need to be balanced against ability and hard work. Therefore we all have the "right" to be a concert pianist, but not necessarily the aptitude or dedication. Equally, a concert pianist may not be able to understand an unpayable financial swap position or the reasons why it is such a a bad idea.
>
>So then a value has to be attributed to the very hard work and considerable aptitude needed to become a concert pianist versus the behavior necessary to write a CDS and flog it off to some other bank at a profit.
>
>What has happened is that somehow the idiotic CDS behavior has become valued very highly while the concert pianist may be reliant on generosity and grants to feed their family outside the orchestral season.
>
>You might argue that the concert pianist should become a banker (or Walmart greeter) if they want to earn more money, but that presupposes that the current situation is balanced and that society is happy not to have any concert pianists. Alternatively, perhaps society ought to value concert pianists a little more highly and bankers a little less highly.
>
>Do you agree, and if so, how do you suppose that this might be achieved since the current system doesn't seem to deliver?