Personal Responsibility

[Bern80]

That's a fair point, I suppose. Now what percentage of us do you think depend on the government to support us?

All of us to to an extent. We all benefit from our military. We all use roads. Police protections, fire, etc. But we are also funding a lot of things that are used by a dispraportionate segement of society. Again I have no problem helping someone get back on their feet. I do have a problem funding people that have made bad choices. This always goes back to the fundamental differnece i see in perspectives. Some people believe the majority of these people's are victims and share little or no responsibility for the situation their in. Others believe that these people have far more control over their situation and the reasons they are in them then they are willing to take responsibility for.

I doubt you're qualified to speak very coherently on what liberals believe.

I have never seen anything on this board from a lefty that contradicts what I said. I have never seen a liberal here conceed that in fact the majority of the rich are so due their bahvior and high degree of motivation. So far I would say I am perfectly qualified to make that statement.

One wonders how he paid his way though veternary school, of course...

A combination of his parents and himself. But I see where you're trying to go here so let's assume it was all completely paid for. Forking over a bunch of money doesn't automatically put knowledge into your brain. And anybody who knows the medical profession knows you have to be at and remain at the top of top to become a doctor (even a doggy doctor). In otherwords he still had to put in the work to become one. When he became a partner of his own practice he still had to put in the work of running a successful business. And it is that commitment that I believe most people lack.

A commonly heard opinion.

The question still remains.....

I can question them, however, if they believe that the poor are responsible for their too high taxes.

Was it not you who was noting how little the poor actally pay in taxes

If one looks at the budget (sans social security and medicade) one finds that a very small percentage of the money spent by government goes to poor people, and a very large percentage of it goes to very VERY ealthy people.

How so. That seems rather contradictory given the numbers. We know the numbers. the top 10% of wealth share 80% of the tax revenue. I mean what do want editec? Do you want them to be shouldering 90% of the burdern or 100%?

Given that the working class have already paid for their social security and medicade, one really has very little to complain about regarding those who collect on those.

How have the rich not paid for it as well? they get ss taken out of their check just like everyone else.

So it appears that your complain is largely directed at welfare folks, which, I am informed, represent less than 3% of the governments spending.

Not really. It is directed at anyone that doesn't make the effort to realize their potential and then has the nerve to complain about their position in life.

 

[editec]

Accept it isn't entirely beyond their control. In fact it is ultimately mostly under their control. You ultimately choose how valuable or expendable you want to make yourself.

You're quite young aren't you?

I don't say that to dismiss your point, because to some extent yourpoint has merit.

But you so wildly over estimate how much control one has over one's worth to society, and more,how much control one has to retrain oneself should your skills, fow whtever reason, suddenly become less valuable.

that they don't have control is to say that they didn't have control over who they chose to work for in the first place. Of course, that isn't true. No one tells anyone in this country you must work for me and even if they did they still have the choice not to.

True...completely not relevant, but quite true...in a purely theoretical sense, at least.

Let me show you, for example, how quickly your fathers skills could suddenly lose value, okay?

Suppose that for whatever reason, this society elected allow anyone who choose to to hang out a sign as a vet.

They could get all the medications that one currently needs to have a Vet license to get.

What do you think would happen to the incomes of the majority of Vets in the next ten years?

So really, your dadddy, who I do not doubt worked damned hard to become a vet, and works damned hard as a vet, too, could very easily, with the stroke of a pen, very quickly find that his licensed monopoly his guild cache, is worth one hell of alot less than it is today.

You see, Bern, your daddy owes this society a debt for protecting his monopoly trade.

Now I can almost hear you telling me how absurd such a proposition is.

It's not...not given the theoretical way YOU view the world, at least.

 

[manifold]

Let me show you, for example, how quickly your fathers skills could suddenly lose value, okay?

Suppose that for whatever reason, this society elected to allow anyone who choose to, to hang out a sign as a vet.

What do you think would happen to the incomes of the majority of Vets in the next ten years?

...

So really, your daddy, who I do not doubt worked damned hard to become a vet, and works damned hard as a vet, too, could very easily, with the stroke of a pen, very quickly find that his licensed monopoly his guild cache, is worth one hell of alot less than it is today.

You see, Bern, your daddy owes this society a debt for protecting his monopoly trade.

Now I can almost hear you telling me how absurd such a proposition is.

It's not...not given the theoretical way YOU view the world, at least.

This actually makes some sense, however, allow me to play devil's advocate.

A very well respectected economist and author, Milton Friedman, has often argued that we should in fact do just as you suggest. His belief is that, notwithstanding the initial cost of few misdiagnosed and dead pets, the free market would ultimately put the unqualified vets out of business and Bern's dad would be just fine without the government protecting his monopoly trade. How do you respond to that?

 

[Tech_Esq]

An oft stated political "value" that I see posted here repeatedly by self-professed conservative republicans is the importance of personal responsibility. As a concept, I happen to agree completely. However, the way this alleged "value" is used to debate specific issues comes across as a thinly veiled euphamism for the virtue of selfishness and the "every man for himself" mantra.

Does personal responsibility REALLY mean every man for himself?

I think instead of everyman for himself, as you are stating it, may really be rational egoism Rational Egoism contra Enlightened Self-Interest.

 

[midcan5]

Just as it could be said the modern liberal is a tool ....

Imitation is the highest sign of flattery, but in this case you got it wrong. Corporate America supports republicans for good reason, I'll let you think of them so you don't cheat and imitate again.

 

[Bern80]

You're quite young aren't you?

I don't say that to dismiss your point, because to some extent yourpoint has merit.

27. Young is a relative term.

But you so wildly over estimate how much control one has over one's worth to society, and more,how much control one has to retrain oneself should your skills, fow whtever reason, suddenly become less valuable.

Worth is not the way I would say it. Because it is all predicated on the notion that people are valuable to someone else, that is they work for someone else. As you probably know most of the this country's wealthy didn't get that way working for other people. They work for themselves, which is risky, but also yields high rewards. 'Worth' as you are stating it is irrelevant. Donald Trump doesn't give a rats a rear end what someone else thinks he's worth in terms of skills because Donald Trump isn't going to be working for anyone else.

Suppose that for whatever reason, this society elected allow anyone who choose to to hang out a sign as a vet.

They could get all the medications that one currently needs to have a Vet license to get.

What do you think would happen to the incomes of the majority of Vets in the next ten years?

So really, your dadddy, who I do not doubt worked damned hard to become a vet, and works damned hard as a vet, too, could very easily, with the stroke of a pen, very quickly find that his licensed monopoly his guild cache, is worth one hell of alot less than it is today.

You see, Bern, your daddy owes this society a debt for protecting his monopoly trade.

Now I can almost hear you telling me how absurd such a proposition is.

It's not...not given the theoretical way YOU view the world, at least.

It is absurd because it is rather implausible and also as a government action would eventually be rendered irrelevant.

First of all, he doensnt' have a monopoly. I don't know where you got that from or how prudent it is to your argument. (I also don't know what you mean by all the medications to be a licensed vet)

Secondly, it may have an impact for a very brief amount of time. Let's say a whole bunch of people started just hanging out signs and offering cheap medicine. One minor detail. They aren't trained and dont' have the knowledge to do so. Even if government drastically reduced the standards by which one could become a vet (such that basically all you had to do is want to be one) the market would insure that eventually people would go back to getting quality care or at the very least care from somene that actually knows what they're doing.

 

[manifold]

An oft stated political "value" that I see posted here repeatedly by self-professed conservative republicans is the importance of personal responsibility. As a concept, I happen to agree completely. However, the way this alleged "value" is used to debate specific issues comes across as a thinly veiled euphamism for the virtue of selfishness and the "every man for himself" mantra.

Does personal responsibility REALLY mean every man for himself?

Fiddlesticks, dickweed.
Personal responsibility means not expecting others to do for you what you are capable of doing yourself, and helping, personally, your fellow man who is unable to do for himself. Believing that you should help yourself does not preclude helping others...or even accepting or asking for help when the need arises. It means doing your very best, and helping others to accomplish their goals when you are in a position to do so.

Doesn't sound like every man for himself to me.

Yeah, but what do you know anyway?

 

[Pho_King]

An oft stated political "value" that I see posted here repeatedly by self-professed conservative republicans is the importance of personal responsibility. As a concept, I happen to agree completely. However, the way this alleged "value" is used to debate specific issues comes across as a thinly veiled euphamism for the virtue of selfishness and the "every man for himself" mantra.

Does personal responsibility REALLY mean every man for himself?

It means take responsibility for yourself and do not burden society with meeting your wants and needs. Do it yourself. I am not surprised you OWS parasites don't really get it.

 

[Katzndogz]

An oft stated political "value" that I see posted here repeatedly by self-professed conservative republicans is the importance of personal responsibility. As a concept, I happen to agree completely. However, the way this alleged "value" is used to debate specific issues comes across as a thinly veiled euphamism for the virtue of selfishness and the "every man for himself" mantra.

Does personal responsibility REALLY mean every man for himself?

It means take responsibility for yourself and do not burden society with meeting your wants and needs. Do it yourself. I am not surprised you OWS parasites don't really get it.

Add

Accept the consequences of your personal behavior.

 

[manifold]

An oft stated political "value" that I see posted here repeatedly by self-professed conservative republicans is the importance of personal responsibility. As a concept, I happen to agree completely. However, the way this alleged "value" is used to debate specific issues comes across as a thinly veiled euphamism for the virtue of selfishness and the "every man for himself" mantra.

Does personal responsibility REALLY mean every man for himself?

It means take responsibility for yourself and do not burden society with meeting your wants and needs. Do it yourself. I am not surprised you OWS parasites don't really get it.

So if you need an ambulance because you're having a heart attack, you've got your own?

 

[Pho_King]

I believe personal responsibility means being held responsibile for those thing over which you have some control.

Today hundreds, perhaps thousands of American workers are going to get their pink slips.

Some of them will be let go because they failed to perform their jobs well, and for that they can be held personally responsible.

But others of them will be let go because the business model is changing.

How are they personally responsible for that?

They are not.

Should we hold them peronally responsible for things entirely beyond their control?

Some of us think we ought to abandon them to their own devices, and some of us think that as a nation we owe it to our neighbors to help them through hard times for which the they cannot be held personally responsible.

Of courses some lose jobs through no fault of their own. And those that accept responsibility for themselves have planned for just such a day, and start looking for work immediately.those that do not have a sense of personal responsibility will milk the taxpayers for every penny they can get.

 

[Pho_King]

Just as it could be said the modern liberal is a tool ....

Imitation is the highest sign of flattery, but in this case you got it wrong. Corporate America supports republicans for good reason, I'll let you think of them so you don't cheat and imitate again.

And the losers of society support democrats for good reason.

 

[Katzndogz]

An oft stated political "value" that I see posted here repeatedly by self-professed conservative republicans is the importance of personal responsibility. As a concept, I happen to agree completely. However, the way this alleged "value" is used to debate specific issues comes across as a thinly veiled euphamism for the virtue of selfishness and the "every man for himself" mantra.

Does personal responsibility REALLY mean every man for himself?

It means take responsibility for yourself and do not burden society with meeting your wants and needs. Do it yourself. I am not surprised you OWS parasites don't really get it.

So if you need an ambulance because you're having a heart attack, you've got your own?

According to the left, if you smoke and eat unhealthy you shouldn't get an ambulance because you are costing all the healthy people tax dollars.

In reality, you will get an ambulance and in due course, get the bill.

 

[Pho_King]

An oft stated political "value" that I see posted here repeatedly by self-professed conservative republicans is the importance of personal responsibility. As a concept, I happen to agree completely. However, the way this alleged "value" is used to debate specific issues comes across as a thinly veiled euphamism for the virtue of selfishness and the "every man for himself" mantra.

Does personal responsibility REALLY mean every man for himself?

It means take responsibility for yourself and do not burden society with meeting your wants and needs. Do it yourself. I am not surprised you OWS parasites don't really get it.

So if you need an ambulance because you're having a heart attack, you've got your own?

No. And if I want a sandwich I purchase the ingredients to make one. Same as with the ambulance ride. Of course, if I were one of you OWS parasites, I would be demanding you to take personal responsibility for my ambulance ride and my sandwich.

 

[SniperFire]

An oft stated political "value" that I see posted here repeatedly by self-professed conservative republicans is the importance of personal responsibility. As a concept, I happen to agree completely. However, the way this alleged "value" is used to debate specific issues comes across as a thinly veiled euphamism for the virtue of selfishness and the "every man for himself" mantra.

Does personal responsibility REALLY mean every man for himself?

Does empty rhetoric REALLY pass for discussion with you?

 

[Pho_King]

An oft stated political "value" that I see posted here repeatedly by self-professed conservative republicans is the importance of personal responsibility. As a concept, I happen to agree completely. However, the way this alleged "value" is used to debate specific issues comes across as a thinly veiled euphamism for the virtue of selfishness and the "every man for himself" mantra.

Does personal responsibility REALLY mean every man for himself?

It means take responsibility for yourself and do not burden society with meeting your wants and needs. Do it yourself. I am not surprised you OWS parasites don't really get it.

Add

Accept the consequences of your personal behavior.

Oh shit. Easy now. You don't want to make Ravi and mani's shitfilled heads explode....

 

[g5000]

Personal responsibility means not expecting others to do for you what you are capable of doing yourself...

Does this mean that the personal responsiblity argument does not apply to the universal healthcare debate since most people do not have the capacity to be their own physician?

One third of the uninsured are high school dropouts, so you better believe personal responsibility applies to the healthcare debate.

If you stay in school, you have a better chance of supporting yourself, and others won't have to be penalized and forced to pay for your fuckups.

If you stop quitting jobs the second you decide you are mad you are not in charge, you will have a better chance of supporting yourself.

If you stop cranking out babies by several different fathers, you will have a better chance of supporting yourself.


Just about every debate where someone screams "What is the government going to do about this?" is about personal responsibility.






.

 

[ecinicola]

an oft stated political "value" that i see posted here repeatedly by self-professed conservative republicans is the importance of personal responsibility. As a concept, i happen to agree completely. However, the way this alleged "value" is used to debate specific issues comes across as a thinly veiled euphamism for the virtue of selfishness and the "every man for himself" mantra.

Does personal responsibility really mean every man for himself?

personal responsibility means what you do, you stand accountable for. Take some responsibilitey to help your own situations and not be dependent on gov't or someone else. Make efforts to achieve something and accomplish something for yourself. You can also help others by taking on the responsibility which is an accomplishment. For example, if you are educated in a field that you can help others then you have accomplished something and taken responsibility of this.

 

[Ravi]

If you stop cranking out babies by several different fathers, you will have a better chance of supporting yourself.

That sounds kind of sexist. What of the personal responsibility of the fathers? The women usually are the ones that take care of their children, btw.

 

[manifold]

It means take responsibility for yourself and do not burden society with meeting your wants and needs. Do it yourself. I am not surprised you OWS parasites don't really get it.

So if you need an ambulance because you're having a heart attack, you've got your own?

According to the left, if you smoke and eat unhealthy you shouldn't get an ambulance because you are costing all the healthy people tax dollars.

Link?