Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #101  
Old 07-26-2019, 08:14 AM
Shodan is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 40,193
Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
Yes, that is what Romney said, but Romney was either misinformed or lying. He was trying to make a disparaging remark about those he considered himself to be better than, but the facts bear out that he was also talking about his own peers.

As far as roads and schools, those are paid for, not by income tax, but by property tax and excise tax, both of which are regressive, and both of which are not only paid by the poor, but paid at a higher percentage of income than that of the wealthy, very bad examples for you to choose to try to make Romney's comment about those he looks down on to be any more accurate, or any less hateful.
You misunderstand. I wasn't pointing out that Romney was wrong, because he wasn't. I was pointing out that you were wrong, because you are. That is, your claim that Romney's wealthy peers do not pay taxes for the government services they receive is amusingly bizarre, but not otherwise worthwhile.

Also, your notion that property taxes are regressive. Can you explain how a person with a million-dollar home pays less in property taxes than a person living in an apartment? Rhetorical question, obviously, because you can't.
Quote:
So, you are in favor of massive deficits, sending our people into unnecessary wars, seperating children from their parents and locking them in cages, and hate half of your fellow citizens?
I am not strawmanning you. You are strawmanning yourself, and not doing a very good job.

Regards,
Shodan
  #102  
Old 07-26-2019, 08:17 AM
Scylla is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Posts: 16,390
Quote:
Originally Posted by slash2k View Post
You would be wrong. Trump has endorsed measures that would have cut legal immigration by 40 to 50 percent or more (such as Tom Cotton's RAISE Act).
I’ll check it out. Thanks.


Quote:
So what do you expect to happen to the people filling those jobs?
I expect that a lot of them will be fucked over if you raise wages. As I said in the post above, there are many sound reasons a person work and benefit from a low paying wage, and a living wage is not the same to all folks everywhere.

Quote:
What if there aren't incentives, though, to which people can respond?
A lack of incentives would mean that everybody is so satisfied with what they are doing, they are unwilling to change jobs or move (in the context of our discussion). That is in fact, the evidence, the data is suggesting is occuring.

Quote:
Some economists see a future in which the number of actual jobs in the U.S. declines, even as the population continues to increase. If 150 million people are chasing 125 million jobs, for example, the incentives and wage structures are going to be grossly distorted.
Yes. That might happen, or not. Right now we have the opposite problem. Not enough people to fill existing jobs. That future, if it happens will not happen overnight. If and when it does begin to happen, we will have to adapt.

Quote:
Even today, we see an increasing bifurcation between highly-skilled and highly-paid workers, on the one hand, and the great mass of workers on the other. This latter group has generally seen their wages stagnating or only very slowly increasing, even as the smaller group surges ahead. Moreover, there's not a lot of mobility between the groups. People who spent the early part of their career in a coal mine tend not to have many opportunities to become digital architects or marketing experts, even if they want to learn something new.
The phenomenon you are describing has always existed. Dish washing is not a skilled or highly valued career. It is though a job almost anyone can get. You mention the lack of mobility between job strata, but you don’t state why it exists.

Maybe people like being coal miners, working their Dad’s job in their hometown making a halfway decent wage. They don’t want to leave everything they know, the place they have been their whole lives, friends and family, and uproot and try to do something new somewhere else. That’s tough scary, risky and unpleasant.

But maybe we need less coal, and the economy has moved on from coal because it is dirty and inefficient and destructive to mine.

How do you get that coal miner to give up what he has known all his life, the only thing, and abandon everything to go somewhere else and try something new?

There are three ways:

1. He is a natural adventurer and will give it a go.
2. You offer him something so incredibly awesome at such a high wage, that sounds so good, he can’t say no.
3. Things get so unpleasant and difficult that he no longer stays.

1and 2 are nice those rare times they occur. The market takes care of #3.

If you interfere with that maybe you are helping him, but maybe you are just prolonging his misery in his current circumstances while depriving him of the better future waiting for him.

Sadly, people are stubborn, and oftentimes things have to get truly terrible before people will abandon what they know.

Do I like it or want it this way? No, but that is the unfortunate reality we must recognize.


Quote:
Labor isn't a single item. A roofer and a nurse are not interchangeable, for example, even though they are both "labor," and even with training may not be capable of doing the other's job. Treating all workers as fungible is overly simplistic to the point of invalidity.
And there are different grades of crude oil too. It’s a stratified or graded commodity when you look at large enough figures to be statistically significant which is why the statistics that I cited and the gov reflect them as such.

Last edited by Scylla; 07-26-2019 at 08:19 AM.
  #103  
Old 07-26-2019, 08:25 AM
Kearsen1 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Austin
Posts: 391
To those 2 folks whom have corrected my error, many thanks. It is not SSN that they do not pay, it's the Fed Tax. (I had to go actually look at a check on an employee)
  #104  
Old 07-26-2019, 09:05 AM
Scylla is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Posts: 16,390
Slash:

I took a quick look regarding Trump cutting legal immigration and there many cites that say he will, and some that say he wonít. Bias seems to be the main predictor of which is which.

I did find this, recently, in the NYT, that seems to indicate that his latest official stance is not to cut it.


https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nyt...ation.amp.html

Personally, I think it needs to go up a bit.
  #105  
Old 07-26-2019, 09:31 AM
Scylla is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Posts: 16,390
Posted in wrong thread

Last edited by Scylla; 07-26-2019 at 09:33 AM.
  #106  
Old 07-26-2019, 10:16 AM
Crane is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: New Mexico
Posts: 1,103

Responsibility implies authority


In the military I was taught that there is no responsibility without commensurate authority. That should apply to the Conservative concept of personal responsibility.

So, if personal responsibility is a Conservative value, then:

Without authority over her own reproduction, a woman cannot be financially responsible. The Conservative position should logically be pro-birth control and pro-abortion.

The corporate form isolates the individual from responsibility for his personal actions. He can exercise authority without accepting responsibility. The Conservative position should be against the corporate form.

I believe this is not the case. Personal responsibility is not a Conservative value.
  #107  
Old 07-26-2019, 10:45 AM
Wrenching Spanners is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: London
Posts: 620
Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
Things like education, job training, relocation assistance, childcare, and healthcare are things that make people more productive and allow people to become more independent and less reliant on assistance, but these are all things that are fought against by conservatives.
<snip>
Get rid of cliffs in assistance that disincentivize promotion and growth.
Maybe it's because I live abroad, but with the possible exception of relocation assistance which I haven't heard about as a government program, I consider every one of the things you've listed to be a conservative value. My starting point is that I want a government thatís effective and that operates under a reasonable tax burden. That requires that the vast majority of people meet most of their own needs. It also involves trade-offs. At their worst, liberals have a very broad list of the needs government should meet, far more than your basic list, and think that all those needs can be met if the rich are taxed sufficiently. And their definition of rich is someone making more money than they are.

By the way, in a thread about personal responsibility, if we want to talk about a proposed US federal program that liberals favour and traditional conservatives should disagree with, can we talk about the Student Loan Debt Relief Act? If you want evidence liberals donít believe in personal responsibility, there you go:
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/07/23/eliz...-students.html
  #108  
Old 07-26-2019, 11:13 AM
Wrenching Spanners is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: London
Posts: 620
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scylla View Post
Not all jobs can or should pay a living wage, because some aren’t meant to and aren’t needed to. I worked in a deli after school while in High School, part time. It was a great job a high schooler could get, supplementing the two owners during peak times. If it had to pay a living wage it would likely not have been offered, to the detriment of all. Others work for experience, or to supplement an income or social security, or... because they like it. And, yes, some are working as hard as they can without making enough to live. That is bad. I agree. Can you fix it without causing more damage than you are fixing? That’s tough, likely not.

If you raise the minimum wage, some of those jobs will just go away, depriving people of work. Some of those jobs will be altered, maybe combined with more skilled jobs or requirements raising the barrier for entry. Then too, what is a living wage. It is surely a different number in a small town in Montana, than it is in San Francisco. It is also a different number for someone on SS, or a single person versus one with a family to support, or a student working part time.

Or all workers the same? Or, are some better than others? Why can’t a valuable worker command a higher price? You raise the minimum wage, you are pulling from the pool of cash which could potentially reward quality work, punishing high quality workers and rewarding the marginal.

Raising the minimum wage is making a very arrogant and dangerous statement: that you know better about what a business can afford to spend, and what their labor is worth than the business. You are also telling the worker that you know better what is good for them than they do.

It’s a dangerous thing with unintended consequences.
I disagree with the portions of your statement that I've bolded. An adult working full time at minimum wage should be able to earn enough to be above the poverty level. I'm sure my categorisations of the absolute (meaning non-relative and not percentage based) poverty level and living wages will be lower than many on this board. However, if we expect people to be self-reliant and responsible for meeting their own needs, then they need the ability to do so, which means the ability to earn a living wage.

Also, a minimum wage is a market inefficiency, but a necessary one. It's an unfortunate fact of life that there is a very broad pool of unskilled workers. Some unskilled workers are able to make more than others through a combination of work ethic and experience, but their pay is relative to their starting point, which is the minimum wage, and many aren't in situations where they are able to achieve raises. The market "fairly" values unskilled workers at a price that is below the minimum wage. If you expect unskilled workers to not be impoverished, and thus self-reliant, then that market inefficiency is needed.

I will note that there are exceptions that justify paying below the living wage. Teen-agers, apprenticeships, work-assistance and retraining programs all, in my mind, are acceptable exceptions, although they should still have a minimum wage, just a lower one.

Last edited by Wrenching Spanners; 07-26-2019 at 11:16 AM.
  #109  
Old 07-26-2019, 11:20 AM
Bone's Avatar
Bone is offline
Extrajudicial
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 11,026

Moderating


Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
No, that is not what I meant, and it would be either stupid or disingenuous to think that I did. That's not even a strawman, that's just completely fabricated from whole cloth.
I'm not quite sure because it's difficult and tedious to read the fisking style you seem to like, but this sounds like both a personal insult, and an accusation of lying. Dial back the hostility, or go play in the Pit where it's appropriate.

[/moderating]
  #110  
Old 07-26-2019, 11:25 AM
puddleglum's Avatar
puddleglum is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: a van down by the river
Posts: 6,726
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wrenching Spanners View Post
I disagree with the portions of your statement that I've bolded. An adult working full time at minimum wage should be able to earn enough to be above the poverty level. I'm sure my categorisations of the absolute (meaning non-relative and not percentage based) poverty level and living wages will be lower than many on this board. However, if we expect people to be self-reliant and responsible for meeting their own needs, then they need the ability to do so, which means the ability to earn a living wage.

Also, a minimum wage is a market inefficiency, but a necessary one. It's an unfortunate fact of life that there is a very broad pool of unskilled workers. Some unskilled workers are able to make more than others through a combination of work ethic and experience, but their pay is relative to their starting point, which is the minimum wage, and many aren't in situations where they are able to achieve raises. The market "fairly" values unskilled workers at a price that is below the minimum wage. If you expect unskilled workers to not be impoverished, and thus self-reliant, then that market inefficiency is needed.

I will note that there are exceptions that justify paying below the living wage. Teen-agers, apprenticeships, work-assistance and retraining programs all, in my mind, are acceptable exceptions, although they should still have a minimum wage, just a lower one.
The problem with this is that if the market fairly values unskilled workers at a price below the minimum wage then either the employers altruistically pay them more than they are worth or do not hire them at all. The latter is much more likely. Thus those with the lowest skills are unemployable and have to be taken care of by everyone else instead of supporting themselves at a low paying job.
  #111  
Old 07-26-2019, 11:30 AM
puddleglum's Avatar
puddleglum is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: a van down by the river
Posts: 6,726
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crane View Post
In the military I was taught that there is no responsibility without commensurate authority. That should apply to the Conservative concept of personal responsibility.

So, if personal responsibility is a Conservative value, then:

Without authority over her own reproduction, a woman cannot be financially responsible. The Conservative position should logically be pro-birth control and pro-abortion.

The corporate form isolates the individual from responsibility for his personal actions. He can exercise authority without accepting responsibility. The Conservative position should be against the corporate form.

I believe this is not the case. Personal responsibility is not a Conservative value.
Killing a baby you created and are responsible for is the opposite of personal responsibility.

The corporate form is a an abrogation of personal responsibility but the economic benefits are so immense that it is best to make an exception in that case.
  #112  
Old 07-26-2019, 11:42 AM
Wrenching Spanners is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: London
Posts: 620
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crane View Post
In the military I was taught that there is no responsibility without commensurate authority. That should apply to the Conservative concept of personal responsibility.

So, if personal responsibility is a Conservative value, then:

Without authority over her own reproduction, a woman cannot be financially responsible. The Conservative position should logically be pro-birth control and pro-abortion.

The corporate form isolates the individual from responsibility for his personal actions. He can exercise authority without accepting responsibility. The Conservative position should be against the corporate form.

I believe this is not the case. Personal responsibility is not a Conservative value.
Regardless of anyone's position on abortion, much less birth control, you're taking a moral argument and turning it into an economic one which is flawed logic. I'm opposed to child labour. There are children whose parents are happy for them to work, and who would do as their parents ordered them too. I'm sure there are people who aren't bothered about child labour, and would accept them as lower priced workers. If supply and demand both exist, absent moral issues, why not let that market exist and let everyone gain the secondary and tertiary economic benefits?

And frankly, speaking personally, if you're supporting women having abortions so they can keep working, I find that rather reprehensible. I would much rather pay for a woman to have maternity care, maternity leave and child care than for her to have an abortion.
  #113  
Old 07-26-2019, 12:07 PM
Crane is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: New Mexico
Posts: 1,103
WS,

Thanks for the response.

Responsibility is a single attribute for a human being. It is not possible to separate moral from financial.

Having children involves serious financial decisions. The authority to control all related resources is necessary in order to exercise personal responsibility. Health, age, situation, finance and moral standards are equal parameters used in exercising personal responsibility.

It's fine to disagree, but in that case, personal responsibility is not a Conservative value.

Last edited by Crane; 07-26-2019 at 12:09 PM.
  #114  
Old 07-26-2019, 12:21 PM
Wrenching Spanners is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: London
Posts: 620
Quote:
Originally Posted by puddleglum View Post
The problem with this is that if the market fairly values unskilled workers at a price below the minimum wage then either the employers altruistically pay them more than they are worth or do not hire them at all. The latter is much more likely. Thus those with the lowest skills are unemployable and have to be taken care of by everyone else instead of supporting themselves at a low paying job.
1) Strictly speaking, obeying the law isnít altruistic. I donít litter because I dislike litter. Thatís a personal preference. Some people may not care about litter, but avoid littering because theyíre afraid of being caught and fined. Thatís consequence avoidance. If you pick up other peopleís litter because you think it improves the community, thatís altruism. Similarly if an employer provides a benefit even though they arenít required to and thereís no market-risk and not doing so, thatís altruism. But obeying a minimum-wage law isn't.

2) Iím not going to hijack a thread about personal responsibility into a debate about the minimum wage. My one comment is to note that the risk of a minimum wage increase is that it will turn a profitable activity into an unprofitable activity, and there isnít sufficient demand for the activity at the increased price required for the activity to be profitable for it to continue. However, across the entire consumer market, demand is fairly inelastic. People will generally switch to a lower priced alternative, but if all alternatives increase in price, people will usually pay the increased price rather than end their consumption.
  #115  
Old 07-26-2019, 01:29 PM
Wrenching Spanners is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: London
Posts: 620
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crane View Post
WS,

Thanks for the response.

Responsibility is a single attribute for a human being. It is not possible to separate moral from financial.

Having children involves serious financial decisions. The authority to control all related resources is necessary in order to exercise personal responsibility. Health, age, situation, finance and moral standards are equal parameters used in exercising personal responsibility.

It's fine to disagree, but in that case, personal responsibility is not a Conservative value.
If I understand your argument, youíre asserting that conservatives disagree with abortion and essentially seek to order women to give birth to unwanted babies rather than have abortions. Fair enough. I disagree that that position is universal among conservatives, but itís obviously true of a large segment especially in the US. I think youíre also pointing out that having a baby forces financial costs and time costs, which are also financial opportunity costs. I think where youíre then going is that by forcing pregnant women to accept these costs, regardless of whether they can personally handle them or not, these conservatives are disabling poor womenís ability to be self-reliant. I agree with you. The most personally responsible thing for a woman to do is not to get pregnant if she doesnít want a baby. However, that obviously happens. When that happens, if society is going to disallow abortion, then society should pick up the womanís costs of having the baby. I consider picking up those costs to be corporate (meaning collective) responsibility rather than personal responsibility. However, to be in favour of imposing those costs while refusing to pay for them is personal irresponsibility. I realise some conservatives seek to have it both ways. I disagree with them, and think theyíre failing their own argument if they argue for personal responsibility.

Covering a couple of other issues, I canít think of any conservative I know personally who objects to birth control. Iím aware that there are religious conservatives who object to birth control, but I believe thatís a minority and most of them are in favour of abstinence. I havenít seen any surveys on this specific issue, but I expect that most of those religious conservatives will concede that if youíre going to ďsinĒ by having sex when you donít want a baby, itís not much additional sin to go ahead and use birth control, especially if youíd prefer having an abortion to having a baby. Iím sure that there are some outliers somewhere, but frankly I think itís a bizarre anti-pragmatic attitude. Also, you didnít mention adoption. All the conservatives I know who disagree with abortion support adoption.
  #116  
Old 07-26-2019, 01:45 PM
Scylla is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Posts: 16,390
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crane View Post
In the military I was taught that there is no responsibility without commensurate authority. That should apply to the Conservative concept of personal responsibility.

So, if personal responsibility is a Conservative value, then:

Without authority over her own reproduction, a woman cannot be financially responsible. The Conservative position should logically be pro-birth control and pro-abortion.

The corporate form isolates the individual from responsibility for his personal actions. He can exercise authority without accepting responsibility. The Conservative position should be against the corporate form.

I believe this is not the case. Personal responsibility is not a Conservative value.

This is a good post, and it gave me pause for a while and made me think deeply enough to set off smoke alarms.

I think you are wrong because the military is a bit of a special case of how responsibility exists, because you exist in the military to carry out orders through the chain of command.

An absolutist view of military responsibility is that if your Sargent tells you to throw a grenade into that hut of orphans, and you carry out that order, you are blameless. It is on him.

Things have evolved, and that defense failed at Nuremberg, but to a degree, the original concept holds. Within a set of parameters that do not include war crimes and atrocities and that fit within the military code of conduct, you have no moral agency or responsibility. So, what you are talking about is responsibility as it applies to the military or other rigidly structured organization.

In other words, you are talking about organizational responsibility, not personal responsibility.

You give an example of a woman without control of her reproduction, but there are aspects of control of her reproduction that do not include abortion.

You also talk about corporate responsibility which exists under the legal fiction that a corporation is a person and that no responsibility is possible to such an entity. I agree that responsibility is too often obfuscated in practice. But, in theory the board of directors, chairman and CEO are responsible for corporate conduct. I think this would potentially work fine if we applied it and gave it teeth.
  #117  
Old 07-26-2019, 01:58 PM
Crane is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: New Mexico
Posts: 1,103
WS,

I stated that personal responsibility requires that all women have authority over decisions for which they are responsible. I did not deal with the motives of Conservatives.

The issue is not a matter of adoption or male attitudes toward birth control. Personal responsibility simply requires personal authority. Having sexual relations is not an absolute 'sin'. It is a decision one makes. Birth control is not 100% effective. An unwanted pregnancy can be terminated. It is a matter of personal authority and responsibility.

So, if personal responsibility is a Conservative value then Conservatives support abortion.

Of course we have yet to define Conservative and list Conservative values.
  #118  
Old 07-26-2019, 02:08 PM
Crane is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: New Mexico
Posts: 1,103
Scylla,

Under the corporate form I can build 12 houses, sell them; then bankrupt the corporation. The next day I begin building 12 more houses down the block. The first 12 home owners have no access to me for complaints of quality, drainage etc because the entity that built their houses no longer exists. It is the way housing developments are organized.

Last edited by Crane; 07-26-2019 at 02:08 PM.
  #119  
Old 07-26-2019, 02:15 PM
Scylla is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Posts: 16,390
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wrenching Spanners View Post
I disagree with the portions of your statement that I've bolded. An adult working full time at minimum wage should be able to earn enough to be above the poverty level. I'm sure my categorisations of the absolute (meaning non-relative and not percentage based) poverty level and living wages will be lower than many on this board. However, if we expect people to be self-reliant and responsible for meeting their own needs, then they need the ability to do so, which means the ability to earn a living wage.

Also, a minimum wage is a market inefficiency, but a necessary one. It's an unfortunate fact of life that there is a very broad pool of unskilled workers. Some unskilled workers are able to make more than others through a combination of work ethic and experience, but their pay is relative to their starting point, which is the minimum wage, and many aren't in situations where they are able to achieve raises. The market "fairly" values unskilled workers at a price that is below the minimum wage. If you expect unskilled workers to not be impoverished, and thus self-reliant, then that market inefficiency is needed.

I will note that there are exceptions that justify paying below the living wage. Teen-agers, apprenticeships, work-assistance and retraining programs all, in my mind, are acceptable exceptions, although they should still have a minimum wage, just a lower one.

The problem here is that I agree with your sentiment. I really do. It should work this way. Who would disagree with the basic concept of an honest dayís work for an honest dayís pay? If someone goes out busts their ass for 8 hours doing a job, they should be earning enough to put food on the table, and a roof over their head. That is fair and just.

I mean that. Saying ďwell tough shit, the world is not fair, life is not fair, deal with it!Ē Is callous, insensitive and most damning..... it is easy.

But itís not. Sometimes an honest and full dayís work is just not worth much. Maybe itís only worth $6/hr. If the minimum wage is $15, that work may not get done and nobody gets anything. Maybe $6 would have helped somebody who now gets nothing. You have taken away his choice, his chance.

The fact is that some people, especially at the level of very basic unskilled labor come with issues and baggage that lower their $worth/hr.

I know a landscaper who mows lawns near here, and he pays an hourly wage on a sliding scale based on how many days in a row somebody manages to show up and work a full day, because some of his employees are hungover and sleep in the truck all morning if they show up at all. Others work a couple of days and make enough money to make it through the rest of the week and donít show up. He basically needs to stock his crew at 150% to count for no shows, and if they all show up he has to pay them all. He has other problems, too that lower the value of the workers who take his jobs. When he finds reliable people he usually gives them a crew and a truck and pays them very well. Even at this level he canít find enough people who are capable of driving a truck, and responsibly running a crew of 3 other people and 4 lawnmowers to mow lawns on their own. Such a man, when he does find one gets an hourly wage AND a percentage of the earnings generated. He has been running this business the 25 years and he has two of four trucks going, because he canít find anyone responsible to run the others, and we are talking around $1,000 week such a person could earn.

Then too, business carries risk, and can run on temporary hard times where the choice might be to close or pay less.

A farmer can break his back planting a field, but there is no guarantee that locusts wonít eat his crop generating a huge loss in which case his labor had a negative value, or that his crop will recoup his investment. Itís unfair, but itís true. Itís difficult but not impossible to pass these risk on to oneís labor. The trade off is that if I work that farmer, I get paid regardless of his outcome. If he canít meet minimum wage and canít plant his crop, his crop, and my labor and the goods that they could provide are removed from the economy.

So... it has very real negative consequences.
  #120  
Old 07-26-2019, 02:17 PM
puddleglum's Avatar
puddleglum is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: a van down by the river
Posts: 6,726
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crane View Post
WS,

I stated that personal responsibility requires that all women have authority over decisions for which they are responsible. I did not deal with the motives of Conservatives.

The issue is not a matter of adoption or male attitudes toward birth control. Personal responsibility simply requires personal authority. Having sexual relations is not an absolute 'sin'. It is a decision one makes. Birth control is not 100% effective. An unwanted pregnancy can be terminated. It is a matter of personal authority and responsibility.

So, if personal responsibility is a Conservative value then Conservatives support abortion.

Of course we have yet to define Conservative and list Conservative values.
How does having personal responsibility allow a woman to kill her unborn baby? Personal responsibility means taking responsibility for your own decisions. If someone decides to take an action like having sex it is their responsibility to deal with the foreseeable outcome of that decision. Not to kill another person to evade the consequences of their action.
  #121  
Old 07-26-2019, 02:18 PM
Scylla is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Posts: 16,390
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crane View Post
Scylla,

Under the corporate form I can build 12 houses, sell them; then bankrupt the corporation. The next day I begin building 12 more houses down the block. The first 12 home owners have no access to me for complaints of quality, drainage etc because the entity that built their houses no longer exists. It is the way housing developments are organized.

Ok. So is this a failure inherent in the structure of corporations or in the way that we govern them? Iíd say the latter.
  #122  
Old 07-26-2019, 02:57 PM
Shodan is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 40,193
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crane
Under the corporate form I can build 12 houses, sell them; then bankrupt the corporation. The next day I begin building 12 more houses down the block. The first 12 home owners have no access to me for complaints of quality, drainage etc because the entity that built their houses no longer exists. It is the way housing developments are organized.
I don't know that this is necessarily true. Depending on what you mean by "bankrupting" the company. And declaring bankruptcy to avoid liability is not as straightforward as you appear to believe.

Regards,
Shodan
  #123  
Old 07-26-2019, 02:58 PM
Crane is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: New Mexico
Posts: 1,103
Scylla,

The topic is personal responsibility in the context of Conservative values. If personal responsibility is a conservative value then Conservatives must reject the corporate form because the corporate form is constructed to eliminate personal responsibility. It is their purpose, not the result of 'failure'.
  #124  
Old 07-26-2019, 03:04 PM
Scylla is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Posts: 16,390
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crane View Post
Scylla,

The topic is personal responsibility in the context of Conservative values. If personal responsibility is a conservative value then Conservatives must reject the corporate form because the corporate form is constructed to eliminate personal responsibility. It is their purpose, not the result of 'failure'.

You seem to think that conservatives are required to take a view of different forms of responsibility straight out of a ďHighlanderĒ movie, i.e. ďThere can be only one!!!Ē

This is not true.

Personal responsibility is the responsibility a person can have.

Corporate responsibility is what a corporation has.

They are not mutually exclusive in the least.
  #125  
Old 07-26-2019, 03:09 PM
Crane is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: New Mexico
Posts: 1,103

Sex and the Conservative State


Quote:
Originally Posted by puddleglum View Post
How does having personal responsibility allow a woman to kill her unborn baby? Personal responsibility means taking responsibility for your own decisions. If someone decides to take an action like having sex it is their responsibility to deal with the foreseeable outcome of that decision. Not to kill another person to evade the consequences of their action.
"..kill her unborn baby.." Is an emoting phrase. Terminating a pregnancy must be the personal responsibility of the pregnant woman regardless of your value judgement of the result.

Unless, of course, personal responsibility is not a Conservative value. Is that your position?

Is it the Conservative position that the state should control all sexual activity - with whom, whether or not licensed, appliances incorporated, associated medical procedures, disposition of resulting children -?
  #126  
Old 07-26-2019, 03:15 PM
Scumpup is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 14,425
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crane View Post

Unless, of course, personal responsibility is not a Conservative value. Is that your position?
It'd be really swell if you quit acting as though the definition of personal responsibility in light of Conservative values that you asserted above is the accepted definition and that all answers must conform to it.
  #127  
Old 07-26-2019, 03:17 PM
Crane is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: New Mexico
Posts: 1,103
Scylla,

Sorry, I did not make my point clear.

The reason for the existence of the corporate form is to shield the owners from legal and/or fiscal responsibility. This is not an aberration. It is the stated purpose of the corporate form.

It is my observation that Conservative Personal Responsibility takes the form of a cult myth.

Perhaps someone can provide a Conservative definition of personal responsibility.
  #128  
Old 07-26-2019, 03:17 PM
Scylla is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Posts: 16,390
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crane View Post
"..kill her unborn baby.." Is an emoting phrase. Terminating a pregnancy must be the personal responsibility of the pregnant woman regardless of your value judgement of the result.

Unless, of course, personal responsibility is not a Conservative value. Is that your position?

Is it the Conservative position that the state should control all sexual activity - with whom, whether or not licensed, appliances incorporated, associated medical procedures, disposition of resulting children -?
I have to agree with Puddlegum and state that you have a very odd and noncomforming definition of personal which I donít accept.
  #129  
Old 07-26-2019, 03:31 PM
Scylla is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Posts: 16,390
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crane View Post
Scylla,

Sorry, I did not make my point clear.

The reason for the existence of the corporate form is to shield the owners from legal and/or fiscal responsibility. This is not an aberration. It is the stated purpose of the corporate form.
That would be the purpose of an LLC. It is not the purpose of corporations in general.



Quote:
Perhaps someone can provide a Conservative definition of personal responsibility.
I did so earlier in the thread. It is the idea that respect for both the self and others means that one should strive to live their life diligently and prudently so as to minimize the chances of becoming a burden on others, and to maximize oneís utility both to themselves and other. It means you take care of yourself so that others do not have to. It follows from that naturally that you accept the consequences of your actions, but more importantly that you have the duty to be aware of them.

Itís really a philosophical thing, as I addressed earlier, and I think it can be traced pretty directly to classical stoicism (the most underrated and least understood philosophy of all time.). Iíd suggest going back and reading my first few posts in this thread.
  #130  
Old 07-26-2019, 04:37 PM
Wrenching Spanners is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: London
Posts: 620
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crane View Post
Under the corporate form I can build 12 houses, sell them; then bankrupt the corporation. The next day I begin building 12 more houses down the block. The first 12 home owners have no access to me for complaints of quality, drainage etc because the entity that built their houses no longer exists. It is the way housing developments are organized.
Absent any attempts to avoid debt, why would you need to bankrupt the corporation? You could simply shut it down, or leave it as a shell with no assets. Much cheaper.

Is your belief that setting up schemes to deliver poor quality products and avoid warranties is an example of conservative values?
  #131  
Old 07-26-2019, 04:41 PM
Kearsen1 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Austin
Posts: 391
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crane View Post
WS,

I stated that personal responsibility requires that all women have authority over decisions for which they are responsible. I did not deal with the motives of Conservatives.

The issue is not a matter of adoption or male attitudes toward birth control. Personal responsibility simply requires personal authority. Having sexual relations is not an absolute 'sin'. It is a decision one makes. Birth control is not 100% effective. An unwanted pregnancy can be terminated. It is a matter of personal authority and responsibility.

So, if personal responsibility is a Conservative value then Conservatives support abortion.

Of course we have yet to define Conservative and list Conservative values.
Personal responsibility: You are free to make whatever decision you wish, those decisions come with consequences. If abortion was illegal, then the responsibility to raise said child is to the mother and father who created him/her/

Last edited by Kearsen1; 07-26-2019 at 04:43 PM.
  #132  
Old 07-26-2019, 04:53 PM
Crane is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: New Mexico
Posts: 1,103
WS,


By bankrupting the company, you avoid any subsequent consequences. It is routinely done in construction, mining and oil drilling.

The incorporators take out the money then terminate the corporation and with it, responsibility. Any spill over costs are paid by the tax payers.
  #133  
Old 07-26-2019, 05:11 PM
Wrenching Spanners is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: London
Posts: 620
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crane View Post
The topic is personal responsibility in the context of Conservative values. If personal responsibility is a conservative value then Conservatives must reject the corporate form because the corporate form is constructed to eliminate personal responsibility. It is their purpose, not the result of 'failure'.
My bolding. This statement is both true and naive. A purpose of corporations is to limit the liability of investors. If I invest £1000 in an incorporated shipping voyage, if that voyage goes bad, then I lose my £1000. However, I'm not on hook to the banks that loaned money to the corporation to charter and fit out the ship. The banks have taken on the risk that a voyage may go bad, and accordingly charge a higher rate of interest. Offsetting their risk is that with the existence of incorporated voyages, more ship voyages will occur and the banks have more opportunities to issue loans and receive high-yield interest payments.

I'll agree that this reduction in individual risk equates to a reduction in individual responsibility. However, if you think that's a bad thing, you're arguing against over 400 years of history.
  #134  
Old 07-26-2019, 05:16 PM
Crane is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: New Mexico
Posts: 1,103
Scylla,

The early discussion centered on social welfare. That is one facet of personal responsibility.

Internally personal responsibility may be a philosophy or state of mind but in the context of citizenship it is the sphere of events that result from ones actions - those things over which one has authority.

Consider:

https://www.can-amforum.com/threads/...ne-shaft.7389/

Open mine and well shafts are an ever present danger. In the case above, the original owner abandoned the mine shaft without closing the opening. Is he personally responsible for the death?
  #135  
Old 07-26-2019, 05:32 PM
Wrenching Spanners is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: London
Posts: 620
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crane View Post
By bankrupting the company, you avoid any subsequent consequences. It is routinely done in construction, mining and oil drilling.

The incorporators take out the money then terminate the corporation and with it, responsibility. Any spill over costs are paid by the tax payers.
There's no need to bankrupt the company to avoid any subsequent consequences. The liability of investors is already limited. You seem to be under the impression that a bankruptcy provides a layer of protection against nefarious external payments. If anything, the opposite is true. Debtors have no right to file suit against receivers of corporate payments. Bankruptcy administrators do.

I've just realised that this is a hijack of the thread, and while I'm interested in any feedback you care to provide, unless it relates to personal responsibility, I'm going to abstain from responding. If you'd like a discussion of the ethics or functionality of corporate bankruptcy with my input, please start a new thread.
  #136  
Old 07-26-2019, 05:39 PM
Scylla is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Posts: 16,390
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crane View Post
Scylla,

The early discussion centered on social welfare. That is one facet of personal responsibility.

Internally personal responsibility may be a philosophy or state of mind but in the context of citizenship it is the sphere of events that result from ones actions - those things over which one has authority.

Consider:

https://www.can-amforum.com/threads/...ne-shaft.7389/

Open mine and well shafts are an ever present danger. In the case above, the original owner abandoned the mine shaft without closing the opening. Is he personally responsible for the death?
You are talking about liability.
  #137  
Old 07-26-2019, 05:43 PM
Crane is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: New Mexico
Posts: 1,103
Scylla,

Yes, liability is another term for personal responsibility.
  #138  
Old 07-26-2019, 05:49 PM
Scylla is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Posts: 16,390
No. We are not talking about the same thing.
  #139  
Old 07-26-2019, 06:03 PM
Crane is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: New Mexico
Posts: 1,103
OK - my definition of personal responsibility is that one is accountable for all acts personal, physical, legal and financial over which one has authority.

Show me yours.

Last edited by Crane; 07-26-2019 at 06:05 PM.
  #140  
Old 07-26-2019, 06:31 PM
thorny locust's Avatar
thorny locust is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Location: Upstate New York
Posts: 1,457
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scylla View Post
Not all jobs can or should pay a living wage, because some arenít meant to and arenít needed to. I worked in a deli after school while in High School, part time. It was a great job a high schooler could get, supplementing the two owners during peak times.
You know, after I posted last night I thought "I bet that bit about such jobs being meant for teenagers whose families are well able to support them is going to show up'.

And if that were really what was going on, there'd be something in that argument. But for there to be anything in that argument, then it would have to be in the ordinary course of events for nearly everyone to work such jobs as teenagers -- and probably for a while afterwards, because there's massively more poorly paid work than could possibly be done by teenagers, especially if they're supposed to have any chance to go to school; and then it would need to be in the ordinary course of events for nearly everyone, by the time they were old enough to start raising kids, to start being paid enough to support themselves and to support those kids.

But that's not what happens. What happens is that yes, some teenagers who don't really need the money take such jobs for a while and then move on to much better paid work; some other people never do the poorly paid work at all; and a whole lot of others wind up in such work as adults, because most of it is, after all, the basic work that needs to be done to keep the society going, so we need a whole lot of people to do it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scylla View Post
If you raise the minimum wage, some of those jobs will just go away, depriving people of work. Some of those jobs will be altered, maybe combined with more skilled jobs or requirements raising the barrier for entry. Then too, what is a living wage. It is surely a different number in a small town in Montana, than it is in San Francisco. It is also a different number for someone on SS, or a single person versus one with a family to support, or a student working part time.

Or all workers the same? Or, are some better than others? Why canít a valuable worker command a higher price? You raise the minimum wage, you are pulling from the pool of cash which could potentially reward quality work, punishing high quality workers and rewarding the marginal.

Raising the minimum wage is making a very arrogant and dangerous statement: that you know better about what a business can afford to spend, and what their labor is worth than the business. You are also telling the worker that you know better what is good for them than they do.

Itís a dangerous thing with unintended consequences.
I'm 68. During my life ever since I became old enough to notice, every time that there have been proposals to raise the minimum wage I've seen those same arguments. And every time, sooner or later, the minimum wage gets raised; generally not enough, but far more than those people making the arguments want it raised. And every time so far the roof has not fallen in and society has not collapsed.

Alternatively, of course, we could leave wages where they are, but provide benefits to the people in those jobs so that they can still live decent lives -- and do so without giving them a hard time about qualifying, without making them worry every month that they won't have enough to manage, and in particular without complaining that they're not being personally responsible and therefore don't really deserve any help.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
your notion that property taxes are regressive. Can you explain how a person with a million-dollar home pays less in property taxes than a person living in an apartment? Rhetorical question, obviously, because you can't.
Theoretically, property taxes aren't regressive, because they're generally based on the value of the property, and rich people do indeed buy or rent more expensive houses than poor people do (though as there are multiple factors involved that's not a perfect match.)

But they are indeed often regressive in practice, because current value of a home is often drastically disconnected from both current income and overall wealth of its owner(s).

People don't pack up and move every year to a house or apartment commensurate with their current income. (If they did, not only would this be massively disruptive both of community ties and of individual lives, but it would be horrendously expensive.) It's quite common, in many areas, for people to still be living in property they purchased twenty or fifty years ago, or that their parents or grandparents purchased even longer ago. Many places that were cheap when they were bought have become horrendously expensive due to accidents of location -- lakefront property even if liable to flooding, for instance, is now often priced extremely high. And the tax assessments are based on what somebody -- almost anybody, including someone from a densely populated area on the far side of the country -- would pay for it. So people with almost no financial resources can wind up stuck with the same property tax the millionaire is paying.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scylla View Post
A lack of incentives would mean that everybody is so satisfied with what they are doing, they are unwilling to change jobs or move (in the context of our discussion). That is in fact, the evidence, the data is suggesting is occuring.
Huh?

A lack of incentives means that people don't see any likely chance that changing what they're doing will produce any improvement. That doesn't mean that they're satisfied. It only means that they don't want to go through a lot of extra trouble and disruption in order to wind up no better off, and considering the costs of said trouble and disruption quite possibly worse off.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Scylla View Post
Maybe people like being coal miners, working their Dadís job in their hometown making a halfway decent wage. They donít want to leave everything they know, the place they have been their whole lives, friends and family, and uproot and try to do something new somewhere else. Thatís tough scary, risky and unpleasant.

But maybe we need less coal, and the economy has moved on from coal because it is dirty and inefficient and destructive to mine.

How do you get that coal miner to give up what he has known all his life, the only thing, and abandon everything to go somewhere else and try something new?

There are three ways:

1. He is a natural adventurer and will give it a go.
2. You offer him something so incredibly awesome at such a high wage, that sounds so good, he canít say no.
3. Things get so unpleasant and difficult that he no longer stays.

1and 2 are nice those rare times they occur. The market takes care of #3.

If you interfere with that maybe you are helping him, but maybe you are just prolonging his misery in his current circumstances while depriving him of the better future waiting for him.

Sadly, people are stubborn, and oftentimes things have to get truly terrible before people will abandon what they know.

Do I like it or want it this way? No, but that is the unfortunate reality we must recognize.
No, that's not the unfortunate reality we must recognize. You've entirely missed possibility 4:

We as a society invest in plants manufacturing solar panels, windmills and windmill equipment, and whatever else actually is currently needed; site these plants in areas where coal mines and other obsolete or otherwise unfavored jobs are dying; and provide training and work in the area where the people losing their jobs are already living, so they don't need to move away from the places they've lived their whole lives, their friends and family, and not so incidentally the support structure provided by those friends and family, which is probably all that's keeping them going right now.

We could use for that purpose some of the $649 billion we're currently spending to subsidize fossil fuels.

Quote:
Originally Posted by puddleglum View Post
The problem with this is that if the market fairly values unskilled workers at a price below the minimum wage then either the employers altruistically pay them more than they are worth or do not hire them at all. The latter is much more likely. Thus those with the lowest skills are unemployable and have to be taken care of by everyone else instead of supporting themselves at a low paying job.
But the whole point being made here is that they're not supporting themselves at a low paying job; because those jobs don't pay enough for people to support themselves on.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scylla View Post
I did so earlier in the thread. It is the idea that respect for both the self and others means that one should strive to live their life diligently and prudently so as to minimize the chances of becoming a burden on others, and to maximize oneís utility both to themselves and other. It means you take care of yourself so that others do not have to. It follows from that naturally that you accept the consequences of your actions, but more importantly that you have the duty to be aware of them..
So you do need to be aware of the consequences, and are responsible for them, if the pesticide used to grow your grapes is killing children in the country in which the grapes are grown but you buy those grapes even though you could afford to buy ones grown without doing such damage?

I thought in post 88 that you were giving being aware of the consequences of which food you choose to buy as an example of something you thought was absurd to bother with. Maybe I was wrong.

And we are all a burden on each other. It's unavoidable. We should all do our best to carry our share of the burden; but claiming you can be entirely self sufficient requires a very narrow and temporary definition of "self sufficient." You are dependent, among other things, on the work being done by the people in those jobs which don't pay enough to live on.
  #141  
Old 07-26-2019, 07:13 PM
Crane is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: New Mexico
Posts: 1,103
WS,

I have stayed within the context of the OP - "Personal responsibility or avoiding personal responsibility" - the purpose of the corporate form is to avoid personal responsibility.
  #142  
Old 07-26-2019, 07:33 PM
Wrenching Spanners is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: London
Posts: 620
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scylla View Post
The problem here is that I agree with your sentiment. I really do. It should work this way. Who would disagree with the basic concept of an honest dayís work for an honest dayís pay? If someone goes out busts their ass for 8 hours doing a job, they should be earning enough to put food on the table, and a roof over their head. That is fair and just.

I mean that. Saying ďwell tough shit, the world is not fair, life is not fair, deal with it!Ē Is callous, insensitive and most damning..... it is easy.

But itís not. Sometimes an honest and full dayís work is just not worth much. Maybe itís only worth $6/hr. If the minimum wage is $15, that work may not get done and nobody gets anything. Maybe $6 would have helped somebody who now gets nothing. You have taken away his choice, his chance.

The fact is that some people, especially at the level of very basic unskilled labor come with issues and baggage that lower their $worth/hr.

I know a landscaper who mows lawns near here, and he pays an hourly wage on a sliding scale based on how many days in a row somebody manages to show up and work a full day, because some of his employees are hungover and sleep in the truck all morning if they show up at all. Others work a couple of days and make enough money to make it through the rest of the week and donít show up. He basically needs to stock his crew at 150% to count for no shows, and if they all show up he has to pay them all. He has other problems, too that lower the value of the workers who take his jobs. When he finds reliable people he usually gives them a crew and a truck and pays them very well. Even at this level he canít find enough people who are capable of driving a truck, and responsibly running a crew of 3 other people and 4 lawnmowers to mow lawns on their own. Such a man, when he does find one gets an hourly wage AND a percentage of the earnings generated. He has been running this business the 25 years and he has two of four trucks going, because he canít find anyone responsible to run the others, and we are talking around $1,000 week such a person could earn.

Then too, business carries risk, and can run on temporary hard times where the choice might be to close or pay less.

A farmer can break his back planting a field, but there is no guarantee that locusts wonít eat his crop generating a huge loss in which case his labor had a negative value, or that his crop will recoup his investment. Itís unfair, but itís true. Itís difficult but not impossible to pass these risk on to oneís labor. The trade off is that if I work that farmer, I get paid regardless of his outcome. If he canít meet minimum wage and canít plant his crop, his crop, and my labor and the goods that they could provide are removed from the economy.

So... it has very real negative consequences.
Since I've pledged to avoid a minimum wage hijack, I've started a related thread in IMHO.
https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb...60&postcount=1

If you're uninterested in this side thread, I have no objection to the moderators closing it.
  #143  
Old 07-26-2019, 07:45 PM
Crane is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: New Mexico
Posts: 1,103
The issue posed by the OP is:


"..."personal responsibility" as a value cannot be disconnected from the racist history of a society. It's very clear that a moral wrong was committed;.... and that many residents who benefited and continue to benefit from that moral wrong feel that they didn't inherit any responsibility in correcting that moral wrong under the guise of personal responsibility."

So, the OP asks if the term 'personal responsibility' as used by conservatives is just a trope to avoid a civic responsibility to an underclass that was created by a racist history that benefits us all?


Yes - in my view avoiding personal responsibility is basic to the Conservative political philosophy.
  #144  
Old 07-26-2019, 08:31 PM
Wrenching Spanners is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: London
Posts: 620
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crane View Post
WS,

I have stayed within the context of the OP - "Personal responsibility or avoiding personal responsibility" - the purpose of the corporate form is to avoid personal responsibility.
Yes, that's true, but please explain why in terms of funding ship voyages, or any other economic enterprise that involves distribution of risk, how the positives of limiting risk and encouraging investment is a negative. Also, note that if you're requiring personal liability for an investment, you're acting as a huge brake on investment. I might be happy to invest £1000 in a ship's voyage, knowing that if the voyage fails, I've lost my £1000. However, if I have to ensure I'm covered for voyage failure, crew injuries, etc., I'm going to be much less likely to take that risk. Under the corporate model, the responsibility for risky decisions hits the people actually making the decisions - in other words the people who have actual personal liability. Granted, they may not actually be able to pay for their bad decisions. But if I'm facing unlimited liabilities for my £1000 investment, then me and every other investor are having to assess the risk of unlimited liability, and there's a very reduced amount of investment going on. Again, 400+ years of history has shown the value of being able to make investments where the investors liability is limited to the value of the investment.
  #145  
Old 07-26-2019, 10:46 PM
WillFarnaby is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Baltimore
Posts: 5,390
Incorporation is perfectly in line with personal responsibility. When an individual transacts with a corporation, the liability status of individuals in the corporation is implicit in the transaction. Nobody expects Colonel Sanders to hand them the chicken. When Colonel Sanders pays someone to cook a chicken, he is transferring much of that responsibility to the worker, just as I could transfer the responsibility to mow my grass to someone else without violating the principle of personal responsibility.

Last edited by WillFarnaby; 07-26-2019 at 10:50 PM.
  #146  
Old 07-26-2019, 10:54 PM
WillFarnaby is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Baltimore
Posts: 5,390
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crane View Post
OK - my definition of personal responsibility is that one is accountable for all acts personal, physical, legal and financial over which one has authority.

Show me yours.
"Accountable" to whom? Stockholders are not held accountable for investing in bad companies?
  #147  
Old 07-27-2019, 12:51 AM
Esprise Me is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Posts: 186
WS, you keep arguing that shielding individuals from liability is a good and even necessary thing in some circumstances but you haven't explained why it isn't contrary to the idea of personal responsibility. Is your argument that personal responsibility is still a conservative value despite this exception that's made for good cause, or are you trying to say corporations are somehow still about personal responsibility?
  #148  
Old 07-27-2019, 12:54 AM
Esprise Me is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Posts: 186
Quote:
Originally Posted by WillFarnaby View Post
"Accountable" to whom? Stockholders are not held accountable for investing in bad companies?
Financially unsuccessful companies, to some extent yes. Morally bad companies? Can you give an example of stockholders being held accountable for that?
  #149  
Old 07-27-2019, 05:05 AM
Wrenching Spanners is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: London
Posts: 620
Quote:
Originally Posted by Esprise Me View Post
WS, you keep arguing that shielding individuals from liability is a good and even necessary thing in some circumstances but you haven't explained why it isn't contrary to the idea of personal responsibility. Is your argument that personal responsibility is still a conservative value despite this exception that's made for good cause, or are you trying to say corporations are somehow still about personal responsibility?
With regards to ownership, corporations are not about personal responsibility. The owners are at risk of losing their investment, but unless they are involved in the decision making of the corporation, they aren't liable for the bad actions of the corporation. I think this is a necessary feature of capitalism. It's definitely a structure that protects the wealthy. But society as a whole benefits when investment is enabled. However, limiting the risk of owners is different from protecting decision makers within a corporation, which includes the board of directors. Those people should be personally responsible for their actions, and shouldn't be allowed to blame the corporation or society for their bad acts.

For a recent example, look at the Volkswagen emissions scandal. Volkswagen shareholders shouldn't be subject to lawsuit because Volkswagen engineers and leadership rigged their cars' exhaust systems. If shareholders were liable, you'd have fewer people investing in car companies. Maybe that's not so bad for diesel, electric cars aren't risk free either. I want there to be investment in the next generation of electrical cars. If a collection of executives knowingly release a battery with a hazardous flaw, then absolutely hold each of them responsible, both civilly and criminally. If the consequences cause the company to go bankrupt, then the investors lose the money they put into the corporation, which isn't a small thing.
  #150  
Old 07-27-2019, 05:33 AM
fedman is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 229
Quote:
Originally Posted by thorny locust View Post
I think both liberals and conservatives favor personal responsibility, even if liberals are far less likely to use the phrase; but I don't think they mean quite the same thing by it.

I get the impression that what conservatives mean by "personal responsibility" is a combination of two things:

1) each person is responsible for their own actions, and the socially-expected results of those actions.

2) each adult is financially responsible for paying their own bills, and those of any minor children they have.

What liberals mean by it is more like:

1) each person is responsible for the effects of their own actions. Doing something that accidentally causes harm doesn't make you a bad person necessarily, and avoiding it entirely may be impossible; but that doesn't remove the responsibility, and the person who causes accidental harm should do their reasonable best to ameliorate it.

2) each person is responsible for pulling their own weight. This may be done in financial or in non-financial forms; 'their own weight' is a variable measure both between people and at different points in any one person's life; and nobody is pulling, or can pull, the whole load.

Both of these can be hard on people in different ways. The conservative attitude seems to lead to results such as: if you did poorly in school, it's because you didn't study hard enough, and you deserve not to be able to get a good job. If, whether or not you did well in school, you don't have enough money to pay your bills as an adult, this is because you made some wrong choice along the way; you've done something wrong, and whether or not you get some form of grudging help you deserve to be denigrated for it. If you took a gamble in your life that didn't work out (and conservatives seem to be all for encouraging people to 'take risks'), that's your own fault, and you deserve to be poor and to be denigrated for it.

But the conservative sense means that, if you did manage to be doing well financially, and you're not doing anything obviously considered socially evil such as bashing your neighbor's head in, you're off the hook. You can keep all your money, except what you owe for services directly rendered to you, and you don't have to spend any time or energy or money worrying about anybody else. (The hook may get you unexpectedly at any moment. But that's usually not allowed for in such thinking, or is handwaved as something that won't happen if you just keep Doing Everything Right.)

The liberal sense means that you're responsible for a whole lot of other people, some of whom you know next to nothing about. If you say something innocently that damages somebody else, you ought to apologize and quit saying it, even if that means that you have trouble thinking of an alternate wording. If you discover that tuna fish caught in Thailand was very likely caught by slave labor, you're not a bad person for having bought such tuna before you knew about it; but now that you know you ought to be looking at cans of tuna to see where they're from, and pay extra for the ones that say they were caught and processed somewhere else, and worry that the somewhere else may not be any better. No fair deliberately refusing to look at the news so you won't find out. And you shouldn't complain about, and should support directly and/or vote for, money and/or time to be spent to help people who aren't doing as well as you are; at least as long as the money and/or time to be spent won't do you serious harm.

But when you need help yourself, you're off the hook. Because nobody can be expected to pull the whole load, and at any given time some people can pull less than others; and that doesn't mean they're bad people who ought to be denigrated. As long as you're doing your best to pull what you reasonably can, that's enough.
but the same conservatives do not apply "personal responsibility" when banks default due to their bad decisions, then it's okay for "welfare" for businesses
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:05 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2019 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017