Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 07-24-2019, 12:29 PM
steronz is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oh-hiya-Maude
Posts: 5,223

Personal responsibility, or avoiding responsibility?


This is an offshoot from the "which conservative values aren't based on bigotry" thread. From page 1:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
How about "personal responsibility" as a conservative value? It's one of mine, and it isn't based on bigotry.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnT View Post
Personal responsibility is a liberal value as well, Shodan.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Airbeck View Post
"Personal Responsibility" is a platitude.
For the purposes of this thread, let's sidestep Airbeck's point about whether or not personal responsibility is even a value, and JohnT's point about (if it is a value) it's uniquely conservative. Certainly conservatives have claimed it as a value, so I want to look at what that means from a conservative standpoint.


As a bit of background for my own point of view, I live in a neighborhood that was founded in racism. About 100 years ago, racist developers bought a bunch of land, incorporated as a city, and sold off deeds that prohibited blacks or Jews from ever owning those plots. Where the city lines ran up against existing housing, the lines were drawn so as to exclude individual blocks (or even specific sides of individual blocks of streets) that were considered to be "too Italian," or too ethnic. When discriminatory deed restrictions were ruled unconstitutional in 1948, the neighborhood continued to keep blacks out by requiring potential homeowners to receive a majority vote from neighborhood associations. This persisted until challenged in court in the late 1970s.

Within the community there's always been a strong pro-social movement. Churches, civic associations, and clubs all exist to help out neighbors in need. People feel responsible for their neighbors. And yet, 100 years ago, the initial residents felt so little responsibility for neighbors who didn't look like them that they built an entirely new city right next to the old one just to keep them out.

The 3rd generation residents of my neighborhood, many of whom are still living here, might now, as modern conservatives, still feel no strong responsibility for communities outside of this one, instead feeling that those residents should take personal responsibility for their own situations.

In this way, I can't help but feel that "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; that this moral wrong has a lasting effect on residents of the city on both sides; 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.
  #2  
Old 07-24-2019, 12:49 PM
manson1972's Avatar
manson1972 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 12,623
I'm pretty sure that "personal responsibility" means "Don't blame others for the results of your own bad decisions" and "Do everything you can personally do to rectify those bad decisions before asking others (the government) to help you"

Those sentiments in and of themselves are not bigoted. When they are only levied against certain groups of people, then yeah, that's when it becomes bigoted.
  #3  
Old 07-24-2019, 01:31 PM
Shodan is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 40,208
"Personal responsibility" means I am personally responsible for the things I personally did. Feeling responsible for things I didn't do may or may not be a good thing, but it isn't the same thing.

And it goes both ways. I am responsible for the things I do wrong, as well as the things I do right.

Obviously it's not 100% - maybe society is partly to blame if I rob a liquor store, just like it is partly the reason that I graduated at the top of my class at West Point. But by default, the locus of responsibility is me, not anybody else.

Your example of feeling responsible for the racist town you didn't found or participate in isn't "personal responsibility" in that sense - it's altruism, which is a fine but not synonymous thing.

Regards,
Shodan
  #4  
Old 07-24-2019, 01:42 PM
Wesley Clark is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 22,578
My impression is personal responsibility is a way to justify callousness. To justify cuts to the social safety net or harsh criminal sanctions. Also as OP mentions a way to justify lack of empathy towards minorities who do not have it as good.

When it comes to Republicans committing crimes, the mantra disappears. The modern conservative movement is based on paranoid fantasies of victimization, which is the exact opposite of the personal responsibility they claim to stand for. Railing that white Christians are victims because their iron grip on power is slipping is the exact opposite of personal responsibility.

Where is this mantra when coal miners see their jobs disappear and they refuse to train for a 21st century economy? Or when farmers vote for trump and then he passes tariffs that damage their companies? Or when Roy Moore and Donald trump threaten the people they sexually assaulted rather than accept what they did was wrong and their voters applauded?
__________________
Sometimes I doubt your commitment to sparkle motion

Last edited by Wesley Clark; 07-24-2019 at 01:44 PM.
  #5  
Old 07-24-2019, 06:44 PM
Wrenching Spanners is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: London
Posts: 634
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wesley Clark View Post
My impression is personal responsibility is a way to justify callousness. To justify cuts to the social safety net or harsh criminal sanctions. Also as OP mentions a way to justify lack of empathy towards minorities who do not have it as good.
An over-generous social safety net is bad. Societal gross value is maximised when everyone in society is contributing to society by being productive citizens. Some people are naturally less productive and some people are unable to be productive. The issue is when the less-productive claim to be unable to be productive, and that's accepted. That issue is furthered when people take advantage of the social safety net, and also the black market for cheap labour or benefit resources such as housing.

Quote:
When it comes to Republicans committing crimes, the mantra disappears. The modern conservative movement is based on paranoid fantasies of victimization, which is the exact opposite of the personal responsibility they claim to stand for. Railing that white Christians are victims because their iron grip on power is slipping is the exact opposite of personal responsibility.
Are there major church groups declaring that white Christians are victims? What are the top 10 white Christian, or multi-ethnic Christian church bodies in the US and which ones have declared Christians to be societal victims. I'm sure you can find fringe examples, but if you want to judge the right based on the fringe-right, I'm sure you'll agree it's fair to judge the left on the fringe-left.

Quote:
Where is this mantra when coal miners see their jobs disappear and they refuse to train for a 21st century economy? Or when farmers vote for trump and then he passes tariffs that damage their companies? Or when Roy Moore and Donald trump threaten the people they sexually assaulted rather than accept what they did was wrong and their voters applauded?
Can you cite an actual example of a coal miner refusing to train for a modern well-paying 21st century job because he preferred coal mining? I'll agree with you that Trump's treatment of farmers has sucked, and that US farm policy should be reformed. I'm also mindful that US farmer issues have existed my entire life, and could you please advise me of when a liberal presidential administration reformed US agricultural policy? Or at least took a strong international stance backing American farmers?
  #6  
Old 07-24-2019, 06:58 PM
begbert2 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Idaho
Posts: 13,624
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wrenching Spanners View Post
An over-generous social safety net is bad. Societal gross value is maximised when everyone in society is contributing to society by being productive citizens. Some people are naturally less productive and some people are unable to be productive. The issue is when the less-productive claim to be unable to be productive, and that's accepted. That issue is furthered when people take advantage of the social safety net, and also the black market for cheap labour or benefit resources such as housing.
I am uncertain about most of the statements in this paragraph. Even taken at face value, I'm not sure that an "over-generous social safety net" has ever been seen on the face of the earth.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wrenching Spanners View Post
Can you cite an actual example of a coal miner refusing to train for a modern well-paying 21st century job because he preferred coal mining?
I'm not sure that "a 21st century economy" means that there's "a modern well-paying 21st century job" for everyone. From what I hear of the current economy, it probably would involve becoming a farmhand, out picking in the fields, for subsistence wages.

That would probably help the farmers out too.
  #7  
Old 07-24-2019, 07:06 PM
Wesley Clark is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 22,578
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wrenching Spanners View Post
An over-generous social safety net is bad. Societal gross value is maximised when everyone in society is contributing to society by being productive citizens. Some people are naturally less productive and some people are unable to be productive. The issue is when the less-productive claim to be unable to be productive, and that's accepted. That issue is furthered when people take advantage of the social safety net, and also the black market for cheap labour or benefit resources such as housing.
How would people take advantage of the social safety net? There are welfare cheats, but the bulk of spending on welfare goes to retirees, health care and education. There is welfare for the poor, but public investment in education, healthcare and pensions for the elderly is about 3 trillion in the US. Food stamps and WIC are a fraction of that.

Racial resentment is one of the strongest predictors of opposition to welfare among whites.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/2960399...n_tab_contents

Quote:
This article examines the role of racial attitudes in shaping white Americans' opposition to welfare. Past research on welfare views has focused on economic self-interest, individualism, and egalitarianism. Using a covariance structure model, I confirm the significance of these factors, but find that racial attitudes are in fact the most important source of opposition to welfare among whites.
Just like racial resentment is one of the strongest predictors of gun ownership among whites.

https://www.semanticscholar.org/pape...e935790f27d232



Quote:
Originally Posted by Wrenching Spanners View Post
Are there major church groups declaring that white Christians are victims? What are the top 10 white Christian, or multi-ethnic Christian church bodies in the US and which ones have declared Christians to be societal victims. I'm sure you can find fringe examples, but if you want to judge the right based on the fringe-right, I'm sure you'll agree it's fair to judge the left on the fringe-left.
Among mainstream republicans, the attitude that whites, men and christians are as persecuted as gays, blacks or muslims is a mainstream attitude.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...=.9b1c22336d76

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wrenching Spanners View Post
Can you cite an actual example of a coal miner refusing to train for a modern well-paying 21st century job because he preferred coal mining? I'll agree with you that Trump's treatment of farmers has sucked, and that US farm policy should be reformed. I'm also mindful that US farmer issues have existed my entire life, and could you please advise me of when a liberal presidential administration reformed US agricultural policy? Or at least took a strong international stance backing American farmers?
https://qz.com/1118162/coal-miners-a...er-retraining/

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-t...-idUSKBN1D14G0
__________________
Sometimes I doubt your commitment to sparkle motion
  #8  
Old 07-24-2019, 01:51 PM
steronz is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oh-hiya-Maude
Posts: 5,223
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
"Personal responsibility" means I am personally responsible for the things I personally did. Feeling responsible for things I didn't do may or may not be a good thing, but it isn't the same thing.

And it goes both ways. I am responsible for the things I do wrong, as well as the things I do right.

Obviously it's not 100% - maybe society is partly to blame if I rob a liquor store, just like it is partly the reason that I graduated at the top of my class at West Point. But by default, the locus of responsibility is me, not anybody else.

Your example of feeling responsible for the racist town you didn't found or participate in isn't "personal responsibility" in that sense - it's altruism, which is a fine but not synonymous thing.
What you're missing here is the throng of calls for other people to take more personal responsibility for themselves. Would you say that's what conservatives typically mean when they talk about personal responsibility (e.g., an outward direction rather than an inward reflection)?

And if so, isn't that a rejection of altruism?
  #9  
Old 07-25-2019, 10:17 AM
Shodan is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 40,208
Quote:
Originally Posted by steronz View Post
What you're missing here is the throng of calls for other people to take more personal responsibility for themselves. Would you say that's what conservatives typically mean when they talk about personal responsibility (e.g., an outward direction rather than an inward reflection)?
"Personal responsibility" means me as well as other people. I am responsible for my own actions, and other people are responsible for their own actions.
Quote:
And if so, isn't that a rejection of altruism?
It isn't either-or. Any more than the presumably liberal principle of altruism means that everyone need only sit still and let other people solve their problems for them.

"You are responsible for yourself" is the default, and subject to override, depending on circumstance.

The assumption "you are responsible for your own life" is a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for you to make anything of your own life. If you assume you can do it, you can often but not always do something. If you assume you can't, you can never do something.

Sometimes you can't do anything. The rest of the time, you can.

Regards,
Shodan
  #10  
Old 07-25-2019, 10:33 AM
steronz is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oh-hiya-Maude
Posts: 5,223
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
Sometimes you can't do anything. The rest of the time, you can.
We're back to a platitude, then. "People have some degree of control over their lives, unless they don't" is hardly a profound principle to build a political philosophy on. It's a statement that nobody could possibly disagree with.

Let's not pretend, though, that this simplistic way of looking at personal responsibility is how conservatives use that phrase.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mitt Romney, 2012
There are 47% of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47% who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it. That that's an entitlement. And the government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what.

And I mean the president starts off with 48, 49, 4— he starts off with a huge number. These are people who pay no income tax. 47% of Americans pay no income tax. So our message of low taxes — doesn't connect. So he'll be out there talking about tax cuts for the rich.

I mean, that's what they sell every four years. And so my job is not to worry about those people. I'll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives.
This goes well beyond personal responsibility as a positive character trait, or simplistic ways of looking at self-determination. Romney's version of invoking personal responsibility seems to serve two purposes.

1) It's used as as invective, incorrectly conflating people who don't pay federal income taxes with all Democrats and excoriating them for lacking character, and
2) As I've stated in my thread title, an absolution of responsibility. It's not Romney's job to worry about other people, he says.


So I ask again, how does this concept translate to policy, except to absolve people of the responsibility for caring for their fellow citizens?

Last edited by steronz; 07-25-2019 at 10:36 AM.
  #11  
Old 07-25-2019, 11:27 AM
thorny locust's Avatar
thorny locust is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Location: Upstate New York
Posts: 1,477
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.
  #12  
Old 07-25-2019, 11:50 AM
Bone's Avatar
Bone is offline
Extrajudicial
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 11,026
Quote:
Originally Posted by steronz View Post
This goes well beyond personal responsibility as a positive character trait, or simplistic ways of looking at self-determination. Romney's version of invoking personal responsibility seems to serve two purposes.
Wait, Romney is a conservative. And apparently folks on the left think Trump is a conservative. But Romney is no fan of Trump. How can that be? It's mind blowing - almost as if conservatism isn't a monolithic thing! Wait, is that racist? Personal responsibility is racist too I suppose.

Personal responsibility is so blasť. If personal responsibility were not so eschewed, how could accomplishments by the individual be denigrated, and poor choices be excused?

We're doing parody, right?
  #13  
Old 07-25-2019, 12:41 PM
puddleglum's Avatar
puddleglum is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: a van down by the river
Posts: 6,745
Quote:
Originally Posted by steronz View Post
We're back to a platitude, then. "People have some degree of control over their lives, unless they don't" is hardly a profound principle to build a political philosophy on. It's a statement that nobody could possibly disagree with.

Let's not pretend, though, that this simplistic way of looking at personal responsibility is how conservatives use that phrase.



This goes well beyond personal responsibility as a positive character trait, or simplistic ways of looking at self-determination. Romney's version of invoking personal responsibility seems to serve two purposes.

1) It's used as as invective, incorrectly conflating people who don't pay federal income taxes with all Democrats and excoriating them for lacking character, and
2) As I've stated in my thread title, an absolution of responsibility. It's not Romney's job to worry about other people, he says.


So I ask again, how does this concept translate to policy, except to absolve people of the responsibility for caring for their fellow citizens?
What Romney gets wrong is conflating those who don't pay income tax with those who expect the government to take care of them.
What Romney get right is that the first responsibility for everyone is to take care of themselves and their family. If everyone did that then there would be no need for other people to do it for them. The truth is that the government can't take care of people. A welfare check is no substitute for a job. Teachers, principals, and social workers can't substitute for involved, loving parents.
The idea that the government can take care of people if only the right people were elected is poison. The only thing that can help people is self reliance and if universally practiced it would solve nearly every political problem.
  #14  
Old 07-30-2019, 12:11 PM
Max S. is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Florida, USA
Posts: 2,043
Quote:
Originally Posted by steronz View Post
We're back to a platitude, then. "People have some degree of control over their lives, unless they don't" is hardly a profound principle to build a political philosophy on. It's a statement that nobody could possibly disagree with.
I have avoided the parent thread specifically because I think all conservative values are platitudes. I think all liberal values are platitudes, too. We're talking about such a large group of people that the only things everyone actually agrees on amount to tautologies which cannot possibly be disputed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by steronz View Post
Let's not pretend, though, that this simplistic way of looking at personal responsibility is how conservatives use that phrase.
Shodan isn't pretending. You can go for more specific definitions based on generalizations of conservative factions, but there be dragons no true Scotsmen beyond this point.

~Max
  #15  
Old 08-20-2019, 05:26 PM
Damuri Ajashi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,659
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
"Personal responsibility" means I am personally responsible for the things I personally did. Feeling responsible for things I didn't do may or may not be a good thing, but it isn't the same thing.

And it goes both ways. I am responsible for the things I do wrong, as well as the things I do right.

Obviously it's not 100% - maybe society is partly to blame if I rob a liquor store, just like it is partly the reason that I graduated at the top of my class at West Point. But by default, the locus of responsibility is me, not anybody else.

Your example of feeling responsible for the racist town you didn't found or participate in isn't "personal responsibility" in that sense - it's altruism, which is a fine but not synonymous thing.

Regards,
Shodan
If there is a social injustice or unjust history from which you derive unsought, unasked for benefit. Do you have a responsibility to do anything?

I don't think you personally have oppressed anyone but you still benefit from the oppression of others. how do you reconcile that?
  #16  
Old 08-20-2019, 07:36 PM
Scumpup is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 14,425
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi View Post
If there is a social injustice or unjust history from which you derive unsought, unasked for benefit. Do you have a responsibility to do anything?

I don't think you personally have oppressed anyone but you still benefit from the oppression of others. how do you reconcile that?
How would you have him reconcile that?
  #17  
Old 08-23-2019, 12:06 PM
Damuri Ajashi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,659
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scumpup View Post
How would you have him reconcile that?
I'd start with having him acknowledge it. Then ask him what his values tell him ought to be done.
  #18  
Old 08-21-2019, 01:02 PM
Max S. is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Florida, USA
Posts: 2,043
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi View Post
If there is a social injustice or unjust history from which you derive unsought, unasked for benefit. Do you have a responsibility to do anything?

I don't think you personally have oppressed anyone but you still benefit from the oppression of others. how do you reconcile that?
Depending on the circumstances, I might have a responsibility to do something. But that responsibility would not flow from "personal responsibility". It might be charity or utilitarianism or religion or what have you.

~Max
  #19  
Old 08-23-2019, 12:07 PM
Damuri Ajashi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,659
Quote:
Originally Posted by Max S. View Post
Depending on the circumstances, I might have a responsibility to do something. But that responsibility would not flow from "personal responsibility". It might be charity or utilitarianism or religion or what have you.

~Max
So does morality/equity/fairness play into personal responsibility at all?

Because if it doesn't then I'm not sure that personal responsibility is a particularly convincing philosophy on which to base a society.
  #20  
Old 08-23-2019, 12:20 PM
Max S. is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Florida, USA
Posts: 2,043
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi View Post
So does morality/equity/fairness play into personal responsibility at all?
Personal responsibility plays into morality, not the other way around. Fairness/equity, which is different than morality, sometimes clashes with personal responsibility. Which comes out supreme depends on one's philosophy.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi View Post
Because if it doesn't then I'm not sure that personal responsibility is a particularly convincing philosophy on which to base a society.
Personal responsibility is not an all-encompassing moral philosophy on its own.

~Max
  #21  
Old 08-23-2019, 12:45 PM
Shodan is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 40,208
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi View Post
So does morality/equity/fairness play into personal responsibility at all?
Yes, it does.

If I steal your car and crash it and cause $1000 in damage, who should pay for that damage, me or my rich next-door neighbor? Most people would say it was me, even though my neighbor can more easily sustain the loss. He could volunteer to do so out of altruism, but that is not the same thing as saying he is personally responsible. Because it is not fair/equitable to make him responsible for what I do, or the consequences.

Who is responsible in the old story, the ant or the grasshopper?

Regards,
Shodan
  #22  
Old 07-24-2019, 01:51 PM
Max S. is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Florida, USA
Posts: 2,043
I identify as politically conservative.

On the one hand, "It is right to give every man his due". This is Plato's definition of morality, and equivocal to personal responsibility. I cannot justify the concept without resorting to decidedly religious or at least spiritual axioms such as the existence of a soul - not necessarily an immortal soul and not necessarily a divine one - and a spiritual basis of morality.

On the other hand I am less than confident about those religious axioms, which sometimes lead to distasteful conclusions. For example, basing public policy on personal responsibility alone is contradictory to egalitarian principles. Nature is not egalitarian, and no man is responsible for acts of nature. Historian/geographer Jared Diamond attributed simple geography as a factor for much of the inequalities in history, and I subscribe to that theory. Whose fault is it that the Americas had few domesticable animals, and therefore no immunity to animal-borne disease? Putting aside the hostility between colonists and indigenous peoples, if there were a peaceful coexistence but the natives fell victim to plague, is this justice? Did the natives deserve it?

Consider if a hurricane blew destroyed my neighbor's house (as Maria did). Did they deserve to lose their new home? Is it not a category mistake to ascribe culpability to acts of nature, given nature's lack of sentience? Why then should I subsidize the repairs except out of the goodness of my heart? Of course, I think it is a good thing to help them repair their house. I even think subsidizing other houses affected by the hurricane is a good thing. But personal responsibility must give way to some other doctrine, because it is unquestionable that I am not responsible for acts of nature.

If this other doctrine is charity, rather than egalitarianism or utilitarianism, the cynic in me says acts of nature will doom people to undeserved suffering. And if no other doctrine is presented, the only answer is that suffering is deserved.

Suffice to say, I have mixed feelings on this subject.

~Max
  #23  
Old 07-24-2019, 03:44 PM
Akaj's Avatar
Akaj is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2018
Location: In the vanishing middle
Posts: 858
The oft-unspoken flip side of "personal responsibility" is "freedom from responsibility to the community." As in, "I've got myself covered, and the rest of you should, too, so don't come crying to me when you need something."

One anecdotal example: A few years ago we had a prolonged heat wave that strained regional power capacity. Brownouts happened. The power company and local authorities urged people to raise their thermostats a degree or two. I'll never forget a staunchly Republican friend of mine saying, "Screw that. I'm not raising my thermostat. I pay my bills so I can keep my house as cool as I want."
__________________
I'm not expecting any surprises.
  #24  
Old 07-25-2019, 11:04 AM
Kearsen1 is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Austin
Posts: 395
Quote:
Originally Posted by Akaj View Post
The oft-unspoken flip side of "personal responsibility" is "freedom from responsibility to the community." As in, "I've got myself covered, and the rest of you should, too, so don't come crying to me when you need something."

One anecdotal example: A few years ago we had a prolonged heat wave that strained regional power capacity. Brownouts happened. The power company and local authorities urged people to raise their thermostats a degree or two. I'll never forget a staunchly Republican friend of mine saying, "Screw that. I'm not raising my thermostat. I pay my bills so I can keep my house as cool as I want."
Even personal responsibility as espoused by conservatives is strongly linked to limited government.

If you fail to do something that could have prevented something, it is then not the fault of the government and/or the community to do it for you.


With that said, I do believe in a social and governmental safety net but not at the cost of absolving the personal responsibility of the parties in question.

Hurricanes etc, insurance covered the house, infrastructure damage, government has that. What else is missing? If you are personally responsible for your status in life, your financial and social mores are on YOU. The fact that this may affect racial classifications differently is the fault of whom?
  #25  
Old 07-25-2019, 11:07 AM
Airbeck is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Chicago - South Side
Posts: 3,061
Do you think children should be personally responsible for themselves? Some of our kids are in bad situations due to simply the circumstances of their birth. Do you just say to them, sorry you should have chosen better parents?
__________________
"Sometimes I think that the surest sign of intelligent life in the Universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." - Calvin and Hobbes
  #26  
Old 07-25-2019, 11:15 AM
Kearsen1 is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Austin
Posts: 395
Quote:
Originally Posted by Airbeck View Post
Do you think children should be personally responsible for themselves? Some of our kids are in bad situations due to simply the circumstances of their birth. Do you just say to them, sorry you should have chosen better parents?
Good question.

Perhaps the parents should be held personally responsible for having said children? Perhaps the state should assume responsibility for those children (by taking them away from parent's who cannot be personally responsible)
But no, the children cannot be responsible for actions not their own.
  #27  
Old 07-25-2019, 11:33 AM
Scylla is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Posts: 16,390
Quote:
Originally Posted by Airbeck View Post
Do you think children should be personally responsible for themselves? Some of our kids are in bad situations due to simply the circumstances of their birth. Do you just say to them, sorry you should have chosen better parents?
Personal Responsibility is something you learn and develop through life, if you are lucky enough to have the opportunity to learn.

Little kids arenít capable of it, though they can learn if they are taught and fortunate to be given problems and responsibilities in line with their maturity and abilities so that they can fail and succeed and learn or grow.

***

You seem to think that personal responsibility is about judging other people. That is EXACTLY wrong. It is about judging yourself.


I would judge myself very poorly indeed if I were to look down on kids because they had bad parents.
  #28  
Old 07-24-2019, 04:56 PM
Manda JO is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Posts: 11,612
What's interesting to me is that often "personal responsibility" is extended more to family/immediate community. I hear it all the time as a teacher: "Why should we have free breakfast, lunch and snack for poor kids? Shouldn't the parents be responsible?"; "School choice makes sense because parents need to take responsibility for their kid's education." This is really noticeable when it comes to food stamps--most people on food stamps are children, so complaining about lazy people on food stamps is really complaining about people with lazy parents. You also get a lot of "should have thought about that before they had kids you can't afford"

The same thing is visible when it comes to things like child abuse and domestic violence: "If someone hurt my family, I wouldn't wait for the government to act, I would take responsibility myself to handle the situation"; "In my day, if a boy was a problem, he got a visit from a dad or an uncle with a shotgun" and "I don't think we should interfere in this bad situation, it's really the family's responsibility to handle it internally".

Personal responsibility is important. But I think a critical difference between the traditionally conservative and liberal points of view is whether or not children are basically an extension of their parents; the conservative point of view seems to feel like the children are so closely aligned with the parents that if the parents fail to take responsibility, then the responsibility doesn't transfer to society--it's not the kid's fault, exactly, but that doesn't make it anyone else's job, either. I think there's generally an idea that if parents are not given another option, they will pull their shit together and take responsibility, or wouldn't have had kids to start with--the problem is that we don't force them to, so they don't. If it's a game of chicken, Conservatives think Liberals swerve too soon and create irresponsible parents; Liberals think conservatives are risking kids's lives and hurting their future based on principle.
  #29  
Old 07-24-2019, 07:17 PM
Wrenching Spanners is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: London
Posts: 634
Quote:
Originally Posted by Manda JO View Post
What's interesting to me is that often "personal responsibility" is extended more to family/immediate community. I hear it all the time as a teacher: "Why should we have free breakfast, lunch and snack for poor kids? Shouldn't the parents be responsible?"; "School choice makes sense because parents need to take responsibility for their kid's education." This is really noticeable when it comes to food stamps--most people on food stamps are children, so complaining about lazy people on food stamps is really complaining about people with lazy parents. You also get a lot of "should have thought about that before they had kids you can't afford"

The same thing is visible when it comes to things like child abuse and domestic violence: "If someone hurt my family, I wouldn't wait for the government to act, I would take responsibility myself to handle the situation"; "In my day, if a boy was a problem, he got a visit from a dad or an uncle with a shotgun" and "I don't think we should interfere in this bad situation, it's really the family's responsibility to handle it internally".

Personal responsibility is important. But I think a critical difference between the traditionally conservative and liberal points of view is whether or not children are basically an extension of their parents; the conservative point of view seems to feel like the children are so closely aligned with the parents that if the parents fail to take responsibility, then the responsibility doesn't transfer to society--it's not the kid's fault, exactly, but that doesn't make it anyone else's job, either. I think there's generally an idea that if parents are not given another option, they will pull their shit together and take responsibility, or wouldn't have had kids to start with--the problem is that we don't force them to, so they don't. If it's a game of chicken, Conservatives think Liberals swerve too soon and create irresponsible parents; Liberals think conservatives are risking kids's lives and hurting their future based on principle.
I generally think of myself as centre-right rather than conservative and one of the main reasons is that I'm mystified by mainstream conservative attitudes towards education, child-care, and youth centres. I think that investment in the future is a conservative value, and education, at least through elementary and secondary levels is investment. With child care, you can have four women rejoining the workforce and pay for one caring for children. Account for secondary productivity benefits and it pays for itself. Youth centres won't have an immediate profit and loss benefit, but I suspect have a long-term benefit. Keep someone crime-free through the age of 18 and I expect they'll probably be less likely to commit crimes than a juvenile offender. So distract them from crime until they're old enough to realise how stupid it is.
  #30  
Old 07-24-2019, 05:05 PM
Esprise Me is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Posts: 190
The term "personal responsibility," like "family values" or "religious freedom," has become a neoconservative dog whistle. I have not heard anyone I would describe as liberal, or even as compassionate, utter that phrase in years. It may have meant a wider range of things once, but these days it only seems to mean what Akaj described.

Just now I tried to think of examples of people I've judged harshly for, essentially, abdicating personal responsibility, and I can think of plenty; I just use different words. Friend's boyfriend who blamed her for making him mad when he pushed her? Abusive. Co-worker who always asks to borrow money because her husband usually carries cash and she hasn't yet figured out she needs some too? Immature and shortsighted. Acquaintance who thinks he shouldn't have to pay the speeding ticket he so richly deserved? Whiny and stupid. Person who, on at least one occasion, has not fully accepted personal responsibility? Ummm...everyone. Maybe that's why lumping all those things together and pretending only some people are like that and need to be like this is associated with bigotry.
  #31  
Old 07-24-2019, 05:18 PM
Akaj's Avatar
Akaj is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2018
Location: In the vanishing middle
Posts: 858
Quote:
Originally Posted by Esprise Me View Post
Person who, on at least one occasion, has not fully accepted personal responsibility? Ummm...everyone. Maybe that's why lumping all those things together and pretending only some people are like that and need to be like this is associated with bigotry.
Let's not forget the concerted efforts in the 70s and 80s to demonize black welfare recipients. While most recipients of government aid were (and still are) white, the notorious "welfare queens" were always black. To anyone predisposed to disapprove of people receiving welfare as lacking in personal responsibility, the faces they associated with that shortcoming were black. And to anyone predisposed to be racist, they could now use "lack of personal responsibility" as justification.
__________________
I'm not expecting any surprises.
  #32  
Old 07-24-2019, 05:10 PM
elbows is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: London, Ontario
Posts: 14,405
Your IPhone is made by people living in barracks who work 12hr days, six days a week. Same with your Nike’s, only those are made by children. Widely known and documented for a decade!

What’s your personal responsibility for those choices exactly?

Last edited by elbows; 07-24-2019 at 05:10 PM.
  #33  
Old 07-24-2019, 06:01 PM
Wrenching Spanners is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: London
Posts: 634
Quote:
Originally Posted by steronz View Post
As a bit of background for my own point of view, I live in a neighborhood that was founded in racism. About 100 years ago, racist developers bought a bunch of land, incorporated as a city, and sold off deeds that prohibited blacks or Jews from ever owning those plots. Where the city lines ran up against existing housing, the lines were drawn so as to exclude individual blocks (or even specific sides of individual blocks of streets) that were considered to be "too Italian," or too ethnic. When discriminatory deed restrictions were ruled unconstitutional in 1948, the neighborhood continued to keep blacks out by requiring potential homeowners to receive a majority vote from neighborhood associations. This persisted until challenged in court in the late 1970s.

Within the community there's always been a strong pro-social movement. Churches, civic associations, and clubs all exist to help out neighbors in need. People feel responsible for their neighbors. And yet, 100 years ago, the initial residents felt so little responsibility for neighbors who didn't look like them that they built an entirely new city right next to the old one just to keep them out.

The 3rd generation residents of my neighborhood, many of whom are still living here, might now, as modern conservatives, still feel no strong responsibility for communities outside of this one, instead feeling that those residents should take personal responsibility for their own situations.

In this way, I can't help but feel that "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; that this moral wrong has a lasting effect on residents of the city on both sides; 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.
You and the other residents of your neighbourhood have a personal responsibility for the actions that take place in your neighbourhood, not the neighbourhood down the road. You also have no personal responsibility for the actions of the people who founded your neighbourhood, whether or not you were related to them. Blame is not an inheritable liability. That is my belief and it is very much a conservative belief.

Where you do have a responsibility, both personal and collective, in in ensuring fair allocation of collective resources. Say you live in Neighbourhood A which is mainly upmarket, and Neighbourhood B on the other side of the tracks is the same size and mainly downmarket. Suppose for the sake of hypothesis that Neighbourhood A and Neighbourhood B each have a school. Regardless of the property values or income levels of each neighbourhood, both schools should receive the same funding. Thatís fair. I regard fairness as a conservative value. However, suppose that the Neighbourhood A school has a much more effective PTA than the Neighbourhood B school and thus performs better. Thatís an unequal situation, but not an unfair one. The conservative/liberal divide then is on how many resources and how much effort should be used to address the inequality. My belief is that a traditional conservative wonít want the resources taken from the Neighbourhood A school simply because itís performing better. However, if there are specific issues at the Neighbourhood B school that can be addressed through additional funding, then it should be considered. If Neighbourhood A schoolís advantage is parental involvement, youíre not going to match that advantage at the Neighbourhood B school simply by throwing money at it. A different example might be study software. If Neighbourhood A privately funded study software for its schoolís students, and found that it worked, then whoeverís at the district level above both Neighbourhood A school and Neighbourhood B school should consider expanding the distribution of study software to the entire district. Thatís effective use of resources which is also a conservative value. The follow-on is whether to pay for the additional cost of the study software by reducing another cost, by raising taxes, or by borrowing and paying for it in the future. Based on an uncertain future return, a traditional conservative would select trading costs, raising taxes and borrowing in that order. This is my view of conservatism, and within this thread Iím not interested in assessing how current national governments match to my vision of conservatism.

A different example of the allocation of resources would be fighting crime. In theory, Neighbourhood A and Neighbourhood B should have equal crime-fighting budgets and equal amounts of policing. However, suppose Neighbourhood B has more crime. Thatís a situation where, in my opinion, unequal allocation of resources is justified. Neighbourhood B has more crime and therefore should receive more policing and other crime-prevention resources in order to reduce the amount of crime. However, there should be a baseline police service, and that service should not be diminished in Neighbourhood A. Also, in terms of personal responsibility, itís wrong for Neighbourhood B to blame its crime problem on Neighbourhood A. Likewise, if Neighbourhood B has more crime than Neighbourhood A, its residents shouldnít complain about being more heavily policed. The burden of being more heavily policed is a collective responsibility issue, but itís a counterpart to the additional resource allocation to prevent crime.
  #34  
Old 07-30-2019, 12:08 PM
Max S. is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Florida, USA
Posts: 2,043
To say I've had trouble following this thread is... an understatement. I've read it all a couple times through and might as well start back up at the top. I find Wrenching Spanners's post #12 to be self-contradictory:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wrenching Spanners
However, suppose that the Neighbourhood A school has a much more effective PTA than the Neighbourhood B school and thus performs better. Thatís an unequal situation, but not an unfair one.
That situation is unfair for the children of Neighborhood B. The children are not responsible for their parent-teacher association's effectiveness, but it is the children whose education suffers as a result. I've put a long explanation below, in case that doesn't make sense.

***

If we make a few basic assumptions, which I hope you will find uncontroversial, I hope to expose the precise contradiction in this position.
  • First is the doctrine of equity or fairness: an assumption that all children have the right to a good education. In your own words you "regard fairness as a conservative value".
  • Second is the assumption that Neighborhood B school, on account of its ineffective parent-teacher association, is incapable of providing a good education for many of its students.
  • Third is the assumption that some parents of Neighborhood B are responsible for the ineffective parent-teacher association; it is in no way the fault of the schoolchildren or the teachers (who are excellent). It is not necessarily that the parents are bad or malicious, just that they are not effective.
  • Fourth is the assumption that the ineffective parents of Neighborhood B may not be denied representation in the parent-teacher association, nor may they be expelled from the school, nor may they be forced to give the state custody of their children, nor may they be forced to be effective.
  • Fifth is the doctrine of personal responsibility: one is only responsible for one's own actions. This is the traditional definition, not the one Scylla advanced (which I recently adopted in post #34"). "You and the other residents of your neighborhood have a personal responsibility for the actions that take place in your neighborhood, not the neighborhood down the road." The parents in Neighborhood A are responsible for the parent-teacher association in Neighborhood A; they are not responsible for the parent-teacher association in Neighborhood B. "Blame is not an inheritable liability".

Now on to the analysis. It is clear that the students of Neighborhood B school are being denied a good education (2), and that a good education is their right (1), therefore the children are being denied a right. Further, the blame falls entirely upon some parents of Neighborhood B (3). Neither the parents of Neighborhood A nor the children of either neighborhood are to blame or have any personal responsibility in the matter (5).

Therefore we have a situation where some parents have deprived many children of their rights, but there is no recourse (4). This is perfectly fair to the parents of Neighborhood B, and possibly to the "families" of Neighborhood B, who are effectively curtailing their own rights; it is fair for you, a parent in Neighborhood A, who had nothing to do with the matter. But if you think of the children, it becomes clear that children are being deprived of their rights due to no fault of their own, which is in and of itself unfair.

Therefore you, on behalf of the whole of society, have the choice between reneging the rights of Neighborhood B (expelling certain parents from the PTA, taking custody of the children), waiving your immunity from responsibility (throwing money at the school, shuttering the school and busing students to Neighborhood A school), or abandoning fairness by allowing the children to suffer (status quo).

Barring some other doctrine, personal responsibility alone cannot make this choice.

Now on to a more controversial idea. Collective responsibility might make the choice. The state runs the school. The state guarantees every child's right to a good education; in fact, the state/society guarantees the rights of all innocents. Some might make an exception for acts of God, but that doesn't apply here where the causes are all acts of man. The state is at fault when, for whatever reason, the children do not have the opportunity for a good education. And all citizens, even those of Neighborhood A, take part in the collective responsibility represented by the state. Therefore the liability shifts from the parents to the state; the state is responsible for the education of children, and the parents are responsible to the state (not the children) for being effective in their PTA. Should the parents fail, the state is still obliged to provide a good education, therefore everybody's taxes go up and the status quo is definitively eliminated from the list of valid options. Then limitations on state power and a cost-benefit analysis (not free) would determine which course of action is appropriate.

~Max

Last edited by Max S.; 07-30-2019 at 12:09 PM.
  #35  
Old 07-31-2019, 11:12 AM
Wrenching Spanners is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: London
Posts: 634
Quote:
Originally Posted by Max S. View Post
To say I've had trouble following this thread is... an understatement. I've read it all a couple times through and might as well start back up at the top. I find Wrenching Spanners's post #12 to be self-contradictory:

That situation is unfair for the children of Neighborhood B. The children are not responsible for their parent-teacher association's effectiveness, but it is the children whose education suffers as a result. I've put a long explanation below, in case that doesn't make sense.

If we make a few basic assumptions, which I hope you will find uncontroversial, I hope to expose the precise contradiction in this position.
  • First is the doctrine of equity or fairness: an assumption that all children have the right to a good education. In your own words you "regard fairness as a conservative value".
  • Second is the assumption that Neighborhood B school, on account of its ineffective parent-teacher association, is incapable of providing a good education for many of its students.
  • Third is the assumption that some parents of Neighborhood B are responsible for the ineffective parent-teacher association; it is in no way the fault of the schoolchildren or the teachers (who are excellent). It is not necessarily that the parents are bad or malicious, just that they are not effective.
  • Fourth is the assumption that the ineffective parents of Neighborhood B may not be denied representation in the parent-teacher association, nor may they be expelled from the school, nor may they be forced to give the state custody of their children, nor may they be forced to be effective.
  • Fifth is the doctrine of personal responsibility: one is only responsible for one's own actions. This is the traditional definition, not the one Scylla advanced (which I recently adopted in post #34"). "You and the other residents of your neighborhood have a personal responsibility for the actions that take place in your neighborhood, not the neighborhood down the road." The parents in Neighborhood A are responsible for the parent-teacher association in Neighborhood A; they are not responsible for the parent-teacher association in Neighborhood B. "Blame is not an inheritable liability".

Now on to the analysis. It is clear that the students of Neighborhood B school are being denied a good education (2), and that a good education is their right (1), therefore the children are being denied a right. Further, the blame falls entirely upon some parents of Neighborhood B (3). Neither the parents of Neighborhood A nor the children of either neighborhood are to blame or have any personal responsibility in the matter (5).

Therefore we have a situation where some parents have deprived many children of their rights, but there is no recourse (4). This is perfectly fair to the parents of Neighborhood B, and possibly to the "families" of Neighborhood B, who are effectively curtailing their own rights; it is fair for you, a parent in Neighborhood A, who had nothing to do with the matter. But if you think of the children, it becomes clear that children are being deprived of their rights due to no fault of their own, which is in and of itself unfair.

Therefore you, on behalf of the whole of society, have the choice between reneging the rights of Neighborhood B (expelling certain parents from the PTA, taking custody of the children), waiving your immunity from responsibility (throwing money at the school, shuttering the school and busing students to Neighborhood A school), or abandoning fairness by allowing the children to suffer (status quo).

Barring some other doctrine, personal responsibility alone cannot make this choice.

Now on to a more controversial idea. Collective responsibility might make the choice. The state runs the school. The state guarantees every child's right to a good education; in fact, the state/society guarantees the rights of all innocents. Some might make an exception for acts of God, but that doesn't apply here where the causes are all acts of man. The state is at fault when, for whatever reason, the children do not have the opportunity for a good education. And all citizens, even those of Neighborhood A, take part in the collective responsibility represented by the state. Therefore the liability shifts from the parents to the state; the state is responsible for the education of children, and the parents are responsible to the state (not the children) for being effective in their PTA. Should the parents fail, the state is still obliged to provide a good education, therefore everybody's taxes go up and the status quo is definitively eliminated from the list of valid options. Then limitations on state power and a cost-benefit analysis (not free) would determine which course of action is appropriate.

~Max
Letís take a step away from the OP, and assume Neighbourhoods A and B are equal. Likewise their schools are equal: same budgets, same number of students and teachers, same level of parent involvement, etc. In year one of our hypothetical, because of all this equality, the schools have equal results.

After year one, the parents in Neighbourhood A decide they want to improve their childrenís education. They increase their parental involvement, and sure enough it works. In year two, School A has better results than School B. Your proposal is to rebalance the schools. This means either taking money away from School Aís budget and giving it to School B, or taxing everyone in order to increase School Bís budget. Youíre punishing Neighbourhood A for improving their school. This is exactly the liberal response that conservatives object to.

Anyway, letís assume that the rebalancing works and in year three, the schools have equal results. Neighbourhood Aís parents decide to raise their game and become even more involved in their childrenís education. So in year four School A again does better than School B. Are you going to punish Neighbourhood A again?

In real life, itís probable that School A and School B are not equal even if they have the same budgets and parental involvement. Neighbourhood B may have systemic problems that cause hardships for their students. Iím in favour of proposals to relieve those hardships if theyíre in the nature of free breakfasts, after school programs, school security, etc. And I do recognise these programs require money, but Iím in favour of spending that money because it will solve problems Neighbourhood B has that Neighbourhood A doesnít.

By the way, I hope that you appreciate that I built the above strawman with the cleanest straw, the straightest sticks, and the strongest twine I could find.

Also, for anyone who thinks my scenarios are totally fictional, there are calls in the UK from liberals to ban private schools because of the advantages they give to rich students. Theyíre not just in favour of rebalancing parent-funded advantages, they want to ban them.
https://www.theguardian.com/lifeands...ey-legislation
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/educatio...tt-argues.html
https://morningstaronline.co.uk/arti...t-be-abolished
  #36  
Old 07-31-2019, 01:07 PM
Max S. is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Florida, USA
Posts: 2,043
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wrenching Spanners View Post
Letís take a step away from the OP, and assume Neighbourhoods A and B are equal. Likewise their schools are equal: same budgets, same number of students and teachers, same level of parent involvement, etc. In year one of our hypothetical, because of all this equality, the schools have equal results.

After year one, the parents in Neighbourhood A decide they want to improve their childrenís education. They increase their parental involvement, and sure enough it works. In year two, School A has better results than School B. Your proposal is to rebalance the schools.
The dilemma remains. Personal responsibility and egalitarianism are conflicting doctrines.

I identify as conservative but I take a middle path here. I say there is a threshold, a minimum quality education that all students are entitled to. Children are entitled to a "good" education, not an "equal" education. I believe in nondiscrimination, not necessarily equal results.

If Neighborhood school B doesn't meet that minimum, I don't care how hard Neighborhood A worked to make themselves better, we are diverting funds to school B. A basic education is important. The long term societal benefit of meeting that minimum outweighs the cost of keeping Neighborhood A down.

That doesn't necessarily mean I would rebalance the schools in the scenario you have written. It would depend on whether Neighborhood school B provides a minimum quality education each year. If Neighborhood school B meets the baseline, I won't complain about further inequality but will respond to complaints by pointing at Neighborhood A as a model. "Look at what they're doing, you could be doing that".

~Max
  #37  
Old 07-24-2019, 06:14 PM
begbert2 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Idaho
Posts: 13,624
In my experience "personal responsibility" means "I shouldn't have lift a finger or pay a penny to help other people."

It usually goes right alongside the mantra of the value of charity, which is "people should voluntarily support each other and aid each other when they're in need."

The combination of these two results in "I certainly expect to be helped by others, but should not be required to help anybody myself - it should be a charitable act which I will do out of the kindness of my christian heart."

Sometimes they even actually are charitable. Now and then. To people they like. The right people. Not the ones that don't deserve it.
  #38  
Old 07-24-2019, 06:14 PM
Scumpup is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 14,425
Collective responsibility? How, exactly, does that work?
  #39  
Old 07-24-2019, 06:28 PM
begbert2 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Idaho
Posts: 13,624
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scumpup View Post
Collective responsibility? How, exactly, does that work?
That's when people think something should be done but that somebody else should do it. (Or more specifically, that it would be a bad idea if each individual attempted to do his own portion of it himself.)

Collective responsibility is the reason government exists, and the rationale from which roads and police forces are spawned.
  #40  
Old 07-24-2019, 06:54 PM
Scumpup is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 14,425
Quote:
Originally Posted by begbert2 View Post
That's when people think something should be done but that somebody else should do it. (Or more specifically, that it would be a bad idea if each individual attempted to do his own portion of it himself.)

Collective responsibility is the reason government exists, and the rationale from which roads and police forces are spawned.
You skipped a couple-three steps in there. Let's use a high profile example: What is my part,as a white guy, of the collective responsibility for slavery in pre-Civil War USA?
  #41  
Old 07-24-2019, 07:04 PM
begbert2 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Idaho
Posts: 13,624
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scumpup View Post
You skipped a couple-three steps in there. Let's use a high profile example: What is my part,as a white guy, of the collective responsibility for slavery in pre-Civil War USA?
You don't get it - the whole idea of collective responsibility (as I think of it) is that it's not the individual's responsibility to take direct action. Instead we pay taxes, the government takes the taxes, and they decide not to give anything to black people.

Our job is just to pay taxes, and stop electing criminal morons.


(And for the record, you're talking to the wrong liberal. I don't think that society, even at the governmental level, has a responsibility to make direct reparations for pre-civil-war slavery - though society does have a responsibility to deal with our current black populations (and white populations) in an intelligent and constructive manner.)
  #42  
Old 07-24-2019, 07:40 PM
Scumpup is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 14,425
Quote:
Originally Posted by begbert2 View Post
You don't get it - the whole idea of collective responsibility (as I think of it) is that it's not the individual's responsibility to take direct action. Instead we pay taxes, the government takes the taxes, and they decide not to give anything to black people.

Our job is just to pay taxes, and stop electing criminal morons.


(And for the record, you're talking to the wrong liberal. I don't think that society, even at the governmental level, has a responsibility to make direct reparations for pre-civil-war slavery - though society does have a responsibility to deal with our current black populations (and white populations) in an intelligent and constructive manner.)
My job is to pay taxes? Are you sure? That doesn't make a good fit with what I learned in those long-ago civics classes. Also, how do we deal with the problems facing the present black population when a substantial number of people believe that those problems are the direct result of slavery? I'm curious, see, because my family didn't arrive in the US until just before WWI and didn't break into even lower middle class until the 1960s. If I have to pay taxes to pay for my part in the collective responsibility for a given wrong, I want to know exactly what my responsibility is and pay taxes proportionately.
  #43  
Old 07-24-2019, 07:29 PM
Wrenching Spanners is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: London
Posts: 634
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wrenching Spanners
Are there major church groups declaring that white Christians are victims? What are the top 10 white Christian, or multi-ethnic Christian church bodies in the US and which ones have declared Christians to be societal victims. I'm sure you can find fringe examples, but if you want to judge the right based on the fringe-right, I'm sure you'll agree it's fair to judge the left on the fringe-left.

From Wesley Clarke:
Among mainstream republicans, the attitude that whites, men and christians are as persecuted as gays, blacks or muslims is a mainstream attitude.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...=.9b1c22336d76

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wrenching Spanners
Can you cite an actual example of a coal miner refusing to train for a modern well-paying 21st century job because he preferred coal mining? I'll agree with you that Trump's treatment of farmers has sucked, and that US farm policy should be reformed. I'm also mindful that US farmer issues have existed my entire life, and could you please advise me of when a liberal presidential administration reformed US agricultural policy? Or at least took a strong international stance backing American farmers?

From Wesley Clarke:
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-t...-idUSKBN1D14G0
Thanks. I acknowledge that both of your responses are excellent rebuttals and deserve consideration.
  #44  
Old 07-25-2019, 10:23 AM
WillFarnaby is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Baltimore
Posts: 5,390
The conservative would view people that look to the government to provide basic necessities as lacking personal responsibility.

Influencing the government by voting or otherwise is not part of personal responsibility. Why would that be personal responsibility when influencing others to do the “right thing” is not?

I do not lack personal responsibility because I failed to influence government to do something. I similarly wouldn’t lack personal responsibility if I failed to influence bums to stop drinking. I have no responsibility towards anyone other than those I voluntarily interact with including my family, friends, employers, business associates, coworkers, and in some cases neighbors.
  #45  
Old 07-25-2019, 11:34 AM
Airbeck is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Chicago - South Side
Posts: 3,061
But cutting the social safety net will directly hurt these kids. And that is something those that claim to be for personal responsibility want to happen.
__________________
"Sometimes I think that the surest sign of intelligent life in the Universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." - Calvin and Hobbes

Last edited by Airbeck; 07-25-2019 at 11:35 AM.
  #46  
Old 07-25-2019, 12:04 PM
Scylla is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Posts: 16,390
Quote:
Originally Posted by Airbeck View Post
But cutting the social safety net will directly hurt these kids. And that is something those that claim to be for personal responsibility want to happen.
They tend to, I agree. I think their motives fall into a couple of categories.

1. They social safety net is higher than it needs to be. ďNobody needs to be sitting around, drinking beer and playing PS4 while on welfare. If they can, we are giving too much.Ē

2. Cutting these programs will force people off of them, and make them take care of themselves and they will end up better off in a ďtough loveĒ sort of way.

3. As structured these programs are a disincentive to provide for oneself.


I think 3 is true, but I think the evidence shows that these programs actually work a lot better than we have any right to expect based on how poorly they are often structured.

I think that this is true for two reasons; dealing with the government is such a horrendous unpleasant nightmare that no longer having to do so is a strong incentive to bootstrap oneself (government bureaucracy and red tape as a feature not a bug.). And, I think most people have a sense of personal responsibility and they want to take care of themselves.

I think these programs need to be the size they need to be based on the need that exists, so Iím not intrinsically for cutting or expanding them. I do think they need to be reformed and improved and aligned with economic and psychological incentives to success.

Most importantly, I think the schooling we provide the underprivileged children of this country is one of our worst sins as a society, and that needs to be fixed.
  #47  
Old 07-25-2019, 12:10 PM
Airbeck is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Chicago - South Side
Posts: 3,061
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scylla View Post
Most importantly, I think the schooling we provide the underprivileged children of this country is one of our worst sins as a society, and that needs to be fixed.
I agree. The very best thing we can do for the future of our society is to ensure that all of our kids have every opportunity to succeed and excel. We are falling well short of that right now.
__________________
"Sometimes I think that the surest sign of intelligent life in the Universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." - Calvin and Hobbes
  #48  
Old 07-25-2019, 02:57 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 36,140
Sadly, Scylla, sometimes it seems that the more effort I put into a post, the less likely you are to respond. When I went through, step-by-step, the history of the shutdown in the other thread, you ignored it. Sometimes I succumb to baser thoughts and put out a flippant snarky post, but that's immature and I apologize. Even if such snark appears more likely to actually get engagement. I'd certainly prefer the substantive discussion, even when it gets contentious.

Last edited by iiandyiiii; 07-25-2019 at 02:58 PM.
  #49  
Old 07-25-2019, 03:27 PM
Scylla is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Posts: 16,390
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
Sadly, Scylla, sometimes it seems that the more effort I put into a post, the less likely you are to respond. When I went through, step-by-step, the history of the shutdown in the other thread, you ignored it. Sometimes I succumb to baser thoughts and put out a flippant snarky post, but that's immature and I apologize. Even if such snark appears more likely to actually get engagement. I'd certainly prefer the substantive discussion, even when it gets contentious.
I think that characterization is incorrect. I have tended to engage you at length, and I donít dodge good debating points. I do move on when in my judgement I find it frustrating, pointless or not interesting, which is what I did in the previous thread. I try not to make a point of not getting pulled back into a conversation that Iíve decided isnít worth having.

I try not to hold grudges or carry debate from one thread into another, as that is unfair to the participants in the new thread.

The exception is when people troll after me, or I perceive they are carrying grudges.

My sincere suggestion would be to move on and if you have something interesting to say on the current subject, do so.
  #50  
Old 07-25-2019, 03:28 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 36,140
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scylla View Post
I think that characterization is incorrect. I have tended to engage you at length, and I donít dodge good debating points. I do move on when in my judgement I find it frustrating, pointless or not interesting, which is what I did in the previous thread. I try not to make a point of not getting pulled back into a conversation that Iíve decided isnít worth having.

I try not to hold grudges or carry debate from one thread into another, as that is unfair to the participants in the new thread.

The exception is when people troll after me, or I perceive they are carrying grudges.

My sincere suggestion would be to move on and if you have something interesting to say on the current subject, do so.
Fair enough, and best wishes!
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 01:40 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