I get the impression that you are using "self" in a very specific sense, so maybe you should explain that also. If not, I immediately get caught in the problem of being unable to tell the difference between the "self" as mentioned above, and the "person" that is implied in people taking responsibility. Or by the "people taking responsibility" do you mean some form of collective responsibility?
>> there is some interesting alternative views in both
> Sankara's debates on samsara, as well as Heidegger's
> thoughts on thrown-ness, etc).
>
> Tell me more about Sankara. I tried Heidegger twice
> and was lost. I just ain't smart enough.
>
Heh ;-). You think I understand Heidegger? But I keep trying. Personally, I think one should read Nietzsche definitely, but once you do that really quick, you should move on to Heidegger and stay a while. Feel free to substitute Husserl et al, in between, with Frege and Russell.
Sankara: I am afraid I am no expert on that either. I will try to hunt up some material...
>> The point about people taking responsibility -- at
> worst its the go-to moral trope of the moderately
> (or better) literate right-wing(er).
>
> But it is also a crucial piece of Nagarjuna's concepts
> of wisdom and compassion.
>
It seems you are using responsibility in a very holistic, eastern (such as in the ideas surrounding 'dharma') and very old-fashioned sense... I am not at all sure Nietzsche would have used it (if he did) in a similar sense. I am quite aware of Nietzsche's flirtations with Indian [religious] philosophy, including his [seemingly strange] understanding and approval of Manu nithi, etc.
Brian Leiter (who, among other things, runs an excellent group blog called Leiter Reports -- check it out!), provides, what to me is/was a good summary of the matter:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/nietzsche-moral-political/
--ravi