Personal responsibility is not a positive, at least not for the person with the ability to respond, especially to manipulation, who chooses not to respond. If one is able and resistant to direction, then one is likely to be perceived as derelict. Mandated performance. How ia that not coercive? So, in short, the party of personal responsibility is not dedicated towards independence, but, quite the contrary, to people doing what they are told.
At the same time, or perhaps inevitably, the rights of the person to autonomy and discretion might as well not exist. So, were individual rights of the natural person left out of the Constitution in tacit recognition of their deprivation to certain populations (women, children and slaves), or was the omission just consistent with the general disrefard for or dismissal of persons in a wholesale fashion.
I suppose one could argue that a manual covering the behavior of agents of government need not have any concern with the people, who govern.
Is that the first instance of the thing left out being more important than the included?