My sense is that the “personal responsibility” camp has a strongly merit-based view of society. There’s a certain faith that the system will reward those who deserve rewards, and a revulsion at the idea that some who don’t deserve rewards might game the system to get them anyway. It’s as if there were some kind of natural economic justice at work blessing the good and culling the unproductive from the herd. Along with that goes the assumption that untethering reward from merit, contravenes that natural justice and leads to social decay.
The “collective responsibility” camp is, overall, less concerned with the whole idea of who merits what. They’re more skeptical that there’s any reliable natural economic justice at work, so they’re somewhat less likely to assume a hard connection between economic success and personal merit. They’re less likely to get worked up about the possibility that someone might get something they don’t deserve. Instead, they look at society more as a whole, as an organism of sorts. They care less about which particular parts of the organism deserve to fed, because it’s the health of the overall organism that matters most. Just being a part of the whole is merit enough for some minimum care.
I belong to the second camp, but it’s not hard for me to shift perspective and see things through the lens of the first camp. However, I see more examples of collectively-oriented societies that function well than of personal responsibility-oriented societies that function well.
On a personal level, I take responsibility for my own needs as much as I can because that lightens the burden for the whole. And I really don’t care that some of the fruits of my labor end up in someone else’s belly, nor do I fret about whether or not they deserve it. I just think we’re all better off that way.