The Erosion of Individual Responsibility

[PatekPhilippe]

People ought to be held responsible for those things over which they had some serious measure of control.

For those things which no individual can truly have control, government will have to do.

Like what for example?

 

[Toro]

I posted something similar to this in another forum and wanted to see other’s thoughts on this. Over the last decade I have noticed a pattern from the government (which I believe has been occurring for much longer) that involves the increase in the number of policies which remove one’s individual responsibility. I think that at least part of the causes of this are from cases where the government was sued or “took heat” of some kind for something that was previously beyond the jurisdiction or control of the government. One example I have seen was regarding an incident at an amusement ride. Two operators were injured as a result of their negligence in not following proper safety precautions. One of the operator’s parents threatened to sue the State, so the State shut the ride down, even though the State clearly knew it was not the fault of the owner of the ride and was the fault of the two operators. This is just the tip of the iceberg of what I have seen.

There are many policies the government has implemented that take away individual responsibility and therefore take away individual freedom, the “bail outs” for one. In a way, when someone sues the government or wants a “bail out” from the government they are saying “please control our lives more” and the government when they accept is in turn saying “OK, you are not responsible for your poor choices, we will take that on, it is really our responsibility”. The precedence is then set and gradually more responsibilities are removed from the individual and passed to the government.

I find this a very sad progression of government policies and this only increases the government’s involvement in our lives. Who really wants that? The government seems to be continually hounded by someone or some group wanting them to also take away their responsibility. People then begin to rely on the government more and more to “bail them out” and save themselves from the consequences of their poor choices. Since these people did not suffer consequences, they did not really learn from their poor choices and they tend to make mistakes over and over while always expecting to be “bailed out”. What many sadly do not realize is that we are gradually losing our freedoms from this process.

Before anyone begins discussing “what about the people that did not make poor choices, and they are just down on their luck, or they were taken advantage of?” This is another problem with many of the political leaders we have today. They use the exceptions to the rule to justify their social policies and give them more power over our lives. One quote that typifies this is from Bill Clinton in 1999: “I can spend your money better than you can.” What this shows is that the government is portraying themselves as more responsible than the public, and I would add that it is because we the people have asked them to do so.

We should make rules that deal justly and fairly with the exceptions, we should however, never make exceptions THE governing rule. The more we not only let the government proceed in the direction it is headed, but beg them to take more control over our lives, the less freedoms we will continue to have. My question is, when will more people begin to realize this so that real change can happen?

Were you as concerned about individual liberty when the past administration restricted individual liberty and increased government oversight, i.e. wire-tapping, Internet-monitoring, detention without charge, forcing librarians to turn over information about patrons reading habits, gathering evidence without revealing the evidence to the accused, government monitoring of political and religious groups, compilation of a wide variety of personal and commercial information on individuals in a centralized database, the authorization of torture, etc.?

 

[ElmerMudd]

Oh.. that is FUNNY!!!!!!!!!!

Another winger attempting to mask their wingerdom

I am a liberal who takes responsibility for my self, my family and my employees. I pay more than my fair share of taxes both personal and business.
The taxes fund government programs that many conservatives take advantage of. I donate to many private charities.

I spend my time taking responsibility for my self and others rather than ripping the government that has provided me the opportunity to have the success I have had.

The tea baggers sound like the hippie radicals of the 60's who hated our government.

You just said earlier you are a moderate. Which is it?

Where I fall on the political spectrum depends on the issue.

Some issues I am considered liberal, some issues I am considered conservative and some issues I am considered moderate. Overall I am a moderate.

If you turn your thinking over to one political philkosophy you give up the ability for critical thinking on an issue.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Please provide the evidence of your assertion about "some conservatives", with quotes.

I agree, we should be helping each other out. Yet, on an individual basis. Forcing people to pay taxes where part of the money goes to a government bureaucracy just to pass a check to someone in need is much less effective and does not teach individual responsibility. When it is individuals who willingly help someone, that person who was helped feels differently than being handed a government check. It helps teach responsibility better. There are actual names of people this person who was helped that he/she feels responsible to thank and/or pay back some day.

Please provide documentation with quotations for your assertion "Forcing people to pay taxes where part of the money goes to a government bureaucracy just to pass a check to someone in need is much less effective and does not teach individual responsibility."

It is called our welfare system, look it up. Do you believe our welfare system overall teaches us to have individual responsibility?

You do not get to answer a question with a question until you give the evidence for your position. You have failed to do that. Evidence with quotations, please.

 

[PatekPhilippe]

I posted something similar to this in another forum and wanted to see other’s thoughts on this. Over the last decade I have noticed a pattern from the government (which I believe has been occurring for much longer) that involves the increase in the number of policies which remove one’s individual responsibility. I think that at least part of the causes of this are from cases where the government was sued or “took heat” of some kind for something that was previously beyond the jurisdiction or control of the government. One example I have seen was regarding an incident at an amusement ride. Two operators were injured as a result of their negligence in not following proper safety precautions. One of the operator’s parents threatened to sue the State, so the State shut the ride down, even though the State clearly knew it was not the fault of the owner of the ride and was the fault of the two operators. This is just the tip of the iceberg of what I have seen.

There are many policies the government has implemented that take away individual responsibility and therefore take away individual freedom, the “bail outs” for one. In a way, when someone sues the government or wants a “bail out” from the government they are saying “please control our lives more” and the government when they accept is in turn saying “OK, you are not responsible for your poor choices, we will take that on, it is really our responsibility”. The precedence is then set and gradually more responsibilities are removed from the individual and passed to the government.

I find this a very sad progression of government policies and this only increases the government’s involvement in our lives. Who really wants that? The government seems to be continually hounded by someone or some group wanting them to also take away their responsibility. People then begin to rely on the government more and more to “bail them out” and save themselves from the consequences of their poor choices. Since these people did not suffer consequences, they did not really learn from their poor choices and they tend to make mistakes over and over while always expecting to be “bailed out”. What many sadly do not realize is that we are gradually losing our freedoms from this process.

Before anyone begins discussing “what about the people that did not make poor choices, and they are just down on their luck, or they were taken advantage of?” This is another problem with many of the political leaders we have today. They use the exceptions to the rule to justify their social policies and give them more power over our lives. One quote that typifies this is from Bill Clinton in 1999: “I can spend your money better than you can.” What this shows is that the government is portraying themselves as more responsible than the public, and I would add that it is because we the people have asked them to do so.

We should make rules that deal justly and fairly with the exceptions, we should however, never make exceptions THE governing rule. The more we not only let the government proceed in the direction it is headed, but beg them to take more control over our lives, the less freedoms we will continue to have. My question is, when will more people begin to realize this so that real change can happen?

Were you as concerned about individual liberty when the past administration restricted individual liberty and increased government oversight, i.e. wire-tapping, Internet-monitoring, detention without charge, forcing librarians to turn over information about patrons reading habits, gathering evidence without revealing the evidence to the accused, government monitoring of political and religious groups, compilation of a wide variety of personal and commercial information on individuals in a centralized database, the authorization of torture, etc.?

Nope. I wasn't concerned about the Bush Administration's policies because I understood we were at war with a ruthless enemy...you fight to win wars...you don't fight to take down your own fucking President during a war. Understand that?

 

[JakeStarkey]

PatekPhillipe I see is still spouting mindless reactionary drivel.

When any president is wrong, you oppose the president legitimately in every way one can legally. That is called the American way.

You want a one-thought nation? Move to Iran.

 

[ElmerMudd]

PatekPhillipe I see is still spouting mindless reactionary drivel.

When any president is wrong, you oppose the president legitimately in every way one can legally. That is called the American way.

You want a one-thought nation? Move to Iran.

Patek said we fight wars to win. I agree.

When you have a President that goes to war to take out the terrorists that attacked our country but divert the forces and focus from the terrorists to a despot he feels disrespected his father you are not helping win the war.

May I remind PP that we are still at war being led by Barrack Obama. The focus is back on the terrorists. Does your statement apply to our current President leading our war effort?

 

[JakeStarkey]

PP must either support the President's war effort or be mentally feeble or malignant.

 

[PatekPhilippe]

PatekPhillipe I see is still spouting mindless reactionary drivel.

When any president is wrong, you oppose the president legitimately in every way one can legally. That is called the American way.

You want a one-thought nation? Move to Iran.

Patek said we fight wars to win. I agree.

When you have a President that goes to war to take out the terrorists that attacked our country but divert the forces and focus from the terrorists to a despot he feels disrespected his father you are not helping win the war.

May I remind PP that we are still at war being led by Barrack Obama. The focus is back on the terrorists. Does your statement apply to our current President leading our war effort?

Yes it does. That's why I don't understand why he changed the ROE to tie our soldiers hands. They should be unleashed...get the fucking job done and come home. All this pussyfooting around has got the country upset.

 

[PatekPhilippe]

PatekPhillipe I see is still spouting mindless reactionary drivel.

When any president is wrong, you oppose the president legitimately in every way one can legally. That is called the American way.

You want a one-thought nation? Move to Iran.

Like drawing Hitler mustaches on pictures of him and making assassination movies about his death right? That's your version the American way? I think we know who is the feeble and malignant one here.

 

[Toro]

Nope. I wasn't concerned about the Bush Administration's policies because I understood we were at war with a ruthless enemy...you fight to win wars...you don't fight to take down your own fucking President during a war. Understand that?

Yes, I understand that freedom and liberty are optional to a large number of conservatives when it suits their purpose on issues that matter to them.

 

[PatekPhilippe]

Nope. I wasn't concerned about the Bush Administration's policies because I understood we were at war with a ruthless enemy...you fight to win wars...you don't fight to take down your own fucking President during a war. Understand that?

Yes, I understand that freedom and liberty are optional to a large number of conservatives when it suits their purpose on issues that matter to them.

We all must make sacrifices during war....just look at history. When the war is OVER there will be plenty of time for you bleeding heart liberals to find fault with everything America stands for and accuse your own countrymen of murder.

 

[JakeStarkey]

PatekPhillipe I see is still spouting mindless reactionary drivel.

When any president is wrong, you oppose the president legitimately in every way one can legally. That is called the American way.

You want a one-thought nation? Move to Iran.

Like drawing Hitler mustaches on pictures of him and making assassination movies about his death right? That's your version the American way? I think we know who is the feeble and malignant one here.

I certainly did not anything of the sort: I said legally and legitimately. The drawings of Obama in that way are as equally hateful as the of Bush. Oppose him legitimately, PP, or support him. But you can't have it both ways.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Nope. I wasn't concerned about the Bush Administration's policies because I understood we were at war with a ruthless enemy...you fight to win wars...you don't fight to take down your own fucking President during a war. Understand that?

Yes, I understand that freedom and liberty are optional to a large number of conservatives when it suits their purpose on issues that matter to them.

We all must make sacrifices during war....just look at history. When the war is OVER there will be plenty of time for you bleeding heart liberals to find fault with everything America stands for and accuse your own countrymen of murder.

You sound like a mindless tea party member, comrade. Conservatives like George Will and Dick Army and Newt Gingrich were not thrilled with Iraq either. Have you forgotten that? Or were they mindless liberals, too, comrade?

 

[PatekPhilippe]

PatekPhillipe I see is still spouting mindless reactionary drivel.

When any president is wrong, you oppose the president legitimately in every way one can legally. That is called the American way.

You want a one-thought nation? Move to Iran.

Like drawing Hitler mustaches on pictures of him and making assassination movies about his death right? That's your version the American way? I think we know who is the feeble and malignant one here.

I certainly did not anything of the sort: I said legally and legitimately. The drawings of Obama in that way are as equally hateful as the of Bush. Oppose him legitimately, PP, or support him. But you can't have it both ways.

I never claimed anything other than that. I was responding to your out and out baseless, bullshit "malignant" comment.

 

[JakeStarkey]

You can deny it all you want, PP.

 

[PatekPhilippe]

Yes, I understand that freedom and liberty are optional to a large number of conservatives when it suits their purpose on issues that matter to them.

We all must make sacrifices during war....just look at history. When the war is OVER there will be plenty of time for you bleeding heart liberals to find fault with everything America stands for and accuse your own countrymen of murder.

You sound like a mindless tea party member, comrade. Conservatives like George Will and Dick Army and Newt Gingrich were not thrilled with Iraq either. Have you forgotten that? Or were they mindless liberals, too, comrade?

Sorry Jake...I'm an American...and more would agree with me than you.

 

[Christopher]

I posted something similar to this in another forum and wanted to see other’s thoughts on this. Over the last decade I have noticed a pattern from the government (which I believe has been occurring for much longer) that involves the increase in the number of policies which remove one’s individual responsibility. I think that at least part of the causes of this are from cases where the government was sued or “took heat” of some kind for something that was previously beyond the jurisdiction or control of the government. One example I have seen was regarding an incident at an amusement ride. Two operators were injured as a result of their negligence in not following proper safety precautions. One of the operator’s parents threatened to sue the State, so the State shut the ride down, even though the State clearly knew it was not the fault of the owner of the ride and was the fault of the two operators. This is just the tip of the iceberg of what I have seen.

There are many policies the government has implemented that take away individual responsibility and therefore take away individual freedom, the “bail outs” for one. In a way, when someone sues the government or wants a “bail out” from the government they are saying “please control our lives more” and the government when they accept is in turn saying “OK, you are not responsible for your poor choices, we will take that on, it is really our responsibility”. The precedence is then set and gradually more responsibilities are removed from the individual and passed to the government.

I find this a very sad progression of government policies and this only increases the government’s involvement in our lives. Who really wants that? The government seems to be continually hounded by someone or some group wanting them to also take away their responsibility. People then begin to rely on the government more and more to “bail them out” and save themselves from the consequences of their poor choices. Since these people did not suffer consequences, they did not really learn from their poor choices and they tend to make mistakes over and over while always expecting to be “bailed out”. What many sadly do not realize is that we are gradually losing our freedoms from this process.

Before anyone begins discussing “what about the people that did not make poor choices, and they are just down on their luck, or they were taken advantage of?” This is another problem with many of the political leaders we have today. They use the exceptions to the rule to justify their social policies and give them more power over our lives. One quote that typifies this is from Bill Clinton in 1999: “I can spend your money better than you can.” What this shows is that the government is portraying themselves as more responsible than the public, and I would add that it is because we the people have asked them to do so.

We should make rules that deal justly and fairly with the exceptions, we should however, never make exceptions THE governing rule. The more we not only let the government proceed in the direction it is headed, but beg them to take more control over our lives, the less freedoms we will continue to have. My question is, when will more people begin to realize this so that real change can happen?

Were you as concerned about individual liberty when the past administration restricted individual liberty and increased government oversight, i.e. wire-tapping, Internet-monitoring, detention without charge, forcing librarians to turn over information about patrons reading habits, gathering evidence without revealing the evidence to the accused, government monitoring of political and religious groups, compilation of a wide variety of personal and commercial information on individuals in a centralized database, the authorization of torture, etc.?

Yes, I was concerned and still am concerned. I did say "over the last decade", which would include the last administration.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I was asking about respected individuals of the party, not the mindless clones who would run off a cliff if asked to for a reactionary administration.*

(*To help you remember -- reactionary is far to right fringe of conservatism.)

 

[Christopher]

Please provide documentation with quotations for your assertion "Forcing people to pay taxes where part of the money goes to a government bureaucracy just to pass a check to someone in need is much less effective and does not teach individual responsibility."

It is called our welfare system, look it up. Do you believe our welfare system overall teaches us to have individual responsibility?

You do not get to answer a question with a question until you give the evidence for your position. You have failed to do that. Evidence with quotations, please.

The only answer needed comes from your response to the question I asked. If you are trying to say that the welfare system teaches individual responsibility better than just individuals freely helping others I will not agree.