# Personal responsibility, or avoiding responsibility? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [July 24, 2019, 4:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/personal-responsibility-or-avoiding-responsibility/837550 "2019-07-24T16:29:52Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 13
**Author:** ![Max\_S](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/46a35a/32.png) [@Max\_S](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Max_S)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2019, 5:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/personal-responsibility-or-avoiding-responsibility/837550/242 "2019-07-31T17:44:35Z")
> [@Crane](#): > > Suppose you were a geologist and had packed some heavy rock samples in your bag. You did nothing ‘wrong’ but it was your extra weight that prevented a recovery from the stall. Are you then responsible? The captain is responsible for his ship and the souls aboard it. This carries over to planes. Unless I had reason to know the rocks presented a danger, it is the pilot’s responsibility to ensure the plane is not overburdened. If he had told me, in person or during registration, the liability falls on me. There’s a chance neither of us would even know the rocks caused it until long after the fact, in a courtroom. Unless I actually knew the rocks prevented a recovery _and_ that I shouldn’t have brought them, the point is moot with regards to my motivation for going after the pilot. ~Max ---
**Author:** ![Crane](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/crane/32/3495_2.png) [@Crane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Crane)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2019, 5:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/personal-responsibility-or-avoiding-responsibility/837550/243 "2019-07-31T17:55:44Z")
Assume that an expert witness determines that your rocks prevented the stall recovery. Assume that you do not know anything about stalls - you are just a geologist doing geology stuff. The judges instructions would ask if the rocks were there as a result of your deliberate act. They were. Are you responsible? Consider that you claimed responsibility when you were impaired by drink. What if you are impaired by ignorance? ---
**Author:** ![Crane](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/crane/32/3495_2.png) [@Crane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Crane)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2019, 6:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/personal-responsibility-or-avoiding-responsibility/837550/244 "2019-07-31T18:07:12Z")
Max: Clarification - this is based on an incident I experienced. The pilot strictly limited the amount of luggage allowed each member of a southwest adventure tour. Our STOL just about did not get out of a canyon because the 2 geologists had packed rock samples in the luggage they were allowed. ---
**Author:** ![Max\_S](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/46a35a/32.png) [@Max\_S](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Max_S)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2019, 6:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/personal-responsibility-or-avoiding-responsibility/837550/245 "2019-07-31T18:42:23Z")
> [@Crane](#): > > Assume that an expert witness determines that your rocks prevented the stall recovery. Assume that you do not know anything about stalls - you are just a geologist doing geology stuff. > > The judges instructions would ask if the rocks were there as a result of your deliberate act. They were. > > Are you responsible? > > Consider that you claimed responsibility when you were impaired by drink. What if you are impaired by ignorance? As I said, it becomes moot for the immediate purpose of motivating me to search and rescue the pilot. If I was ignorant on the plane, unless that expert witness or judge is on the ground at the moment to explain the error in my ways, it doesn’t matter whether or not I was actually responsible. All that matters, for the purpose of determining my primary motivation for saving the pilot, is whether I _think_ I am responsible. And it is doubly-moot because, as I explained earlier yet, I would save the pilot anyways. ~Max ---
**Author:** ![Crane](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/crane/32/3495_2.png) [@Crane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Crane)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2019, 7:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/personal-responsibility-or-avoiding-responsibility/837550/246 "2019-07-31T19:51:00Z")
Thanks for the response ---
**Author:** ![Max\_S](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/46a35a/32.png) [@Max\_S](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Max_S)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2019, 6:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/personal-responsibility-or-avoiding-responsibility/837550/247 "2019-08-01T18:11:04Z")
> [@Scylla](#): > > I agree. I made a similar point pertaining to geography earlier in the thread. If you admit there are location-independent circumstances where people barely if at all make a “living wage”, it does not follow that all people can, will, or even ought to sell their labor at market price or relocate for jobs. Think about it this way. Let’s pretend (from here on it’s pretend) I have kids who need a roof over their head or CPS will take them away. I don’t have enough cash to pay next month’s rent and my credit sucks. I also work two full time low-paying jobs and am on all of the assistance programs I can qualify for. _We have already acknowledged that this can all happen due to no fault of my own_. Charity is an option but let’s say I’m an atheist so none of the charities in my area will touch me. I already asked for raises but my bosses say they are strapped, which makes sense because business isn’t going well - despite my yearly “raise” my wages are actually going down after adjusting for inflation. In this scenario I just don’t have the _luxury_ of moving or demanding more pay or working harder. If things don’t work out, I lose the kids and the last thread of hope and purpose in a dark, cold world. That’s not a risk I’m willing to take. I do not feel like I “own my own labor” or that I “can sell [my labor] as I see fit”. I don’t make a living wage, and I would not go elsewhere. I am a direct counterexample to your [POST=21770142]post #77[/POST]. If you think people can’t live like this, you are partially right. Many people are depressed. Some turn to drugs or crime, and some people just break. We can get to the prevalence of such a scenario later, but I would first ask for an admission that the above is _possible_. It is _possible_ for people in certain unfortunate situations to make a rational decision to undersell their labor, possibly even below a living wage. ~Max ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2019, 6:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/personal-responsibility-or-avoiding-responsibility/837550/248 "2019-08-01T18:56:24Z")
> [@Max\_S](#): > > If you admit there are location-independent circumstances where people barely if at all make a “living wage”, it does not follow that all people can, will, or even ought to sell their labor at market price or relocate for jobs. I am not sure I am following your argument, but yes - some people cannot earn enough to support themselves. Jordan Peterson, in one of his YouTube videos, talks about intelligence testing in the military. And according to the video, the military won’t take you if you have an IQ below (IIRC) 83. Their experience is that there is no job in the military where it is cost-effective to put someone if his or her IQ is less than 83 - it is more trouble than it is worth. They can’t move them around to a less demanding job - there are no jobs in the military little enough demanding for someone like that. JP says that about 10% of the population has an IQ below 83. So, I for one am perfectly willing to accept that some people can never find work that will pay a living wage. Not because they won’t relocate - no matter where they move, nobody will hire them. Is that what you are talking about? Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2019, 7:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/personal-responsibility-or-avoiding-responsibility/837550/249 "2019-08-01T19:43:13Z")
> [@Max\_S](#): > > If you admit there are location-independent circumstances where people barely if at all make a “living wage”, it does not follow that all people can, will, or even ought to sell their labor at market price or relocate for jobs. > > Think about it this way. Let’s pretend (from here on it’s pretend) I have kids who need a roof over their head or CPS will take them away. I don’t have enough cash to pay next month’s rent and my credit sucks. I also work two full time low-paying jobs and am on all of the assistance programs I can qualify for. _We have already acknowledged that this can all happen due to no fault of my own_. Charity is an option but let’s say I’m an atheist so none of the charities in my area will touch me. I already asked for raises but my bosses say they are strapped, which makes sense because business isn’t going well - despite my yearly “raise” my wages are actually going down after adjusting for inflation. > > In this scenario I just don’t have the _luxury_ of moving or demanding more pay or working harder. If things don’t work out, I lose the kids and the last thread of hope and purpose in a dark, cold world. That’s not a risk I’m willing to take. I do not feel like I “own my own labor” or that I “can sell [my labor] as I see fit”. I don’t make a living wage, and I would not go elsewhere. I am a direct counterexample to your [POST=21770142]post #77[/POST]. > > If you think people can’t live like this, you are partially right. Many people are depressed. Some turn to drugs or crime, and some people just break. > > We can get to the prevalence of such a scenario later, but I would first ask for an admission that the above is _possible_. It is _possible_ for people in certain unfortunate situations to make a rational decision to undersell their labor, possibly even below a living wage. > > ~Max You say “no fault of your own,” in this post. In an earlier post you talked about different scenarios of plane crashes that put blame on different parties. What does fault have to do with it? You are in the exact same dire situation either way. Your example above makes a big deal about saying the person is blameless. Does his blame change the scenario? Because in his situation is at least partially a function of his choices, right? ---
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2019, 7:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/personal-responsibility-or-avoiding-responsibility/837550/250 "2019-08-01T19:58:50Z")
> [@Max\_S](#): > > I would then ask you to re-examine your position from [POST=21768660]post #28[/POST]: You’ve whooshed me. I don’t see the contradiction. > [@](#): > > In all three of the counter-examples I provided in [POST=21769463]post #34[/POST] (loan, interviewee, date), it is possible and necessary to judge somebody’s personal responsibility. Further, these judgments directly affect people’s lives. The loan applicant is granted or denied a loan, the interviewee is granted or denied a job, and your friend might call off a date, all based on your decision alone. Do you still think personal responsibility “has nothing to do with anybody else” except oneself? Well yes, but I think our confusion is semantic. “Personal responsibility” in terms of conservatism is a value one applies to oneself about how one lives one’s life. All these decisions you are talking about require that judgement will be applied because they affect the decision maker personally. They affect the decision maker’s personal responsibility. So, if I am evaluating Fred’s creditworthiness for a loan, I am not a making a personal judgement of him in the judgements sense (“he’s a loser,”. “I’m better than him.”) I am just evaluating whether or not the loan makes sense. > [@](#): > > Your narrative is powerful, and I thank you for sharing it, but it just doesn’t seem relevant. That’s not personal responsibility as we have been discussing it, it is just plain old responsibility. The personal responsibility we are discussing is being responsible for one’s own actions. I thought that was exactly what I was doing. I think I am talking about personal responsibility in terms of a value that you apply to your life, a quasi-philosophy. I think you are talking about in the sense of if I borrow your hammer and lose it, you hold me personally responsible for replacing it. > [@](#): > > Let me elaborate. Pretend I purchase a chartered flight in Alaska, for sightseeing purposes. The proprietor is also the pilot, and he takes me up over Denali. He starts drinking over my objections and after a while we stall and start falling. He can’t regain control and we ditch the plane which crashes below. I land with only minor injuries but the drunk pilot released late (he may have lost consciousness during the fall), therefore I saw him glide into the trees half a mile uphill. > > If I keep a level head, I would call the state troopers on my sat phone (if I have one) while setting out to find the pilot. Why go after the pilot? It’s not out of a sense of personal responsibility. The pilot is entirely responsible for the whole situation, as far as I am concerned. It was his plane, his drinking, his piloting. I’m in the clear and I’ll probably sue him if we make it out alive. I guess you could say I have a small incentive to save the pilot, so I can hold him personally responsible for the mess. There is also the fact that he probably knows the area better than I, and might know how to get to a rest house or how to salvage things from the plane, etc. Neither of those are my primary motivation in going to save the pilot. I would go after him out of a sense of humanity, not personal responsibility. Yes. We do not bother to define ourselves adt the outset of the conversation (actually, I di, likening it to stoicism). You are talking about PR as owsies, I.e he crashed the plane he owes me. ---
**Author:** ![Max\_S](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/46a35a/32.png) [@Max\_S](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Max_S)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2019, 10:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/personal-responsibility-or-avoiding-responsibility/837550/251 "2019-08-01T22:35:38Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > They can’t move them around to a less demanding job - there are no jobs in the military little enough demanding for someone like that. JP says that about 10% of the population has an IQ below 83. > > So, I for one am perfectly willing to accept that some people can never find work that will pay a living wage. Not because they won’t relocate - no matter where they move, nobody will hire them. > > Is that what you are talking about? Technically that would be what I’m talking about, but I had in mind situations more along the lines of my [POST=21778770]post #218[/POST]. People with heavy obligations that cannot be discharged with bankruptcy, such as medical, student loans, child support. To the point that they work multiple jobs and still don’t make a “living wage”. ~Max ---
**Author:** ![Max\_S](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/46a35a/32.png) [@Max\_S](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Max_S)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2019, 11:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/personal-responsibility-or-avoiding-responsibility/837550/252 "2019-08-01T23:03:35Z")
> [@Scylla](#): > > What does fault have to do with it? You are in the exact same dire situation either way. Your example above makes a big deal about saying the person is blameless. Does his blame change the scenario? > > Because in his situation is at least partially a function of his choices, right? I think blame or culpability is the primary criteria in determining whether one is personally responsible for something. “Is it my fault?” Originally, I would have answered either “Yes it is my fault, therefore it is my responsibility” or “no, it is not my fault, therefore it is not my responsibility”. You convinced me to drop the “no” answer. So now, according to my idea of personal responsibility, if something is my fault, it is almost definitely my responsibility\*. If something is not my fault, then fault says nothing about responsibility. I’m not personally responsible but I still might have responsibility for it under some other doctrine. \*still not sure how to handle conflicts between my responsibility for a fault and my responsibility with eg: my dependents Why does personal responsibility matter at all here? That’s where our two sub-threads meet. Let’s say you represent society. You get to decide whether I qualify for assistance; whether I am a _responsible person_, though I claim to be one now; ultimately, whether giving me assistance would be a net good or bad for society. You have to inconvenience a lot of people a little bit to help me. This is a sort of real-life trolley problem and the basis of welfare. You may be a Stoic but society would collapse if people could not make these kinds of character judgements. You don’t have to assume my state of mind, just the facts and history. There’s harm and suffering on the line, and inaction is a decision. How do you rule? > [@Scylla](#): > > Because in his situation is at least partially a function of his choices, right? Partially, but not necessarily enough to say I am personally responsible for the dire situation. It could have been a single car accident as described upthread. ~Max ---
**Author:** ![Max\_S](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/46a35a/32.png) [@Max\_S](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Max_S)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2019, 11:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/personal-responsibility-or-avoiding-responsibility/837550/253 "2019-08-01T23:22:43Z")
> [@Scylla](#): > > So, if I am evaluating Fred’s creditworthiness for a loan, I am not a making a personal judgement of him in the judgements sense (“he’s a loser,”. “I’m better than him.”) I am just evaluating whether or not the loan makes sense. A lender evaluates whether or not Fred is a financially responsible person. Financial responsibility is a form of personal responsibility. “Fred has a sense of financial responsibility. He has not missed a single payment in the past ten years.” “Fred has no sense of financial responsibility. I see that we have already given him multiple extensions on existing loans and he tends to make partial payments after the due date.” A hiring manager evaluates whether or not Fred is a responsible person. “Fred’s references say he has a solid sense of personal responsibility. When Fred says he will have something done by Friday, he will have something done by Friday.” “Fred’s references say he has no sense of personal responsibility, and he routinely let projects slip past deadlines.” Even in advice to a friend about a prospective date, you may weigh your opinion based on a judgement of personal responsibility. “Fred is a real solid guy, solid job, solid family, solid friends if I say so myself. He never stands a girl up and he’s not the kind of person to cheat. I think he’ll treat you well.” “Fred? That guy is a sleaze, he’s got more debt than the Donald, he’ll have you pay for dinner, _and_ he’s got a history of disappearing the morning after. Just ask Sue.” ~Max ---
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2019, 12:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/personal-responsibility-or-avoiding-responsibility/837550/254 "2019-08-02T00:44:31Z")
> [@Max\_S](#): > > A lender evaluates whether or not Fred is a financially responsible person. No they don’t. They just decide whether or not they will get paid on time, and whether the collateral is a desirable alternative. It’s a pretty strict numbers thing. > [@](#): > > Financial responsibility is a form of personal responsibility. “Fred has a sense of financial responsibility. He has not missed a single payment in the past ten years.” “Fred has no sense of financial responsibility. I see that we have already given him multiple extensions on existing loans and he tends to make partial payments after the due date.” Nope. It’s not like that. Fred can have a perfect payment history and if his debt to income is too high, than his personal responsibility is moot. If his collateral is really good it might not matter how big a piece of shit he has been, because the lender might want the collateral. > [@](#): > > A hiring manager evaluates whether or not Fred is a responsible person. “Fred’s references say he has a solid sense of personal responsibility. When Fred says he will have something done by Friday, he will have something done by Friday.” “Fred’s references say he has no sense of personal responsibility, and he routinely let projects slip past deadlines.” I think you are stretching to put it in these terms. I’d be surprised to hear a hiring manager do so, especially in today’s environment where references are tough to get because of liability. They are most likely going to look at qualifications, salary requirements and interviews. You are not going to learn the kind of things you are talking about until after they’ve been hired. > [@](#): > > Even in advice to a friend about a prospective date, you may weigh your opinion based on a judgement of personal responsibility. “Fred is a real solid guy, solid job, solid family, solid friends if I say so myself. He never stands a girl up and he’s not the kind of person to cheat. I think he’ll treat you well.” “Fred? That guy is a sleaze, he’s got more debt than the Donald, he’ll have you pay for dinner, _and_ he’s got a history of disappearing the morning after. Just ask Sue.” > > ~Max I will give you this last one, but that seems to be a case where judging is specifically called for. ---
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2019, 12:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/personal-responsibility-or-avoiding-responsibility/837550/255 "2019-08-02T00:46:11Z")
Max: I noticed you didn’t respond to my comments that perhaps we are not talking about the exact same thing. Thoughts? ---
**Author:** ![Max\_S](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/46a35a/32.png) [@Max\_S](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Max_S)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2019, 4:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/personal-responsibility-or-avoiding-responsibility/837550/256 "2019-08-02T16:18:13Z")
> [@Scylla](#): > > No they don’t. > > They just decide whether or not they will get paid on time, and whether the collateral is a desirable alternative. It’s a pretty strict numbers thing. > > Nope. It’s not like that. Fred can have a perfect payment history and if his debt to income is too high, than his personal responsibility is moot. If his collateral is really good it might not matter how big a piece of shit he has been, because the lender might want the collateral. Will you admit that personal/financial responsibility is _sometimes_ a factor when evaluating a loan application? Not everybody owns a house or car to put up as collateral. Some people rent/lease, many people already took our loans to finance their house/car. > [@Scylla](#): > > I think you are stretching to put it in these terms. I’d be surprised to hear a hiring manager do so, especially in today’s environment where references are tough to get because of liability. They are most likely going to look at qualifications, salary requirements and interviews. You are not going to learn the kind of things you are talking about until after they’ve been hired. Think what you may, I made hiring decisions in that manner last week. The references factor into the beginning and the end of the hiring process - either it gets the applicant’s foot in the door, or it is the critical factor in the final round, or both. Especially with an entry-level position, references are important. Besides, the same sort of thing comes up during the annual review. That’s when I base my evaluation on personal experience, but the effect is usually upon wages instead of hire/fire. ~Max ---
**Author:** ![Max\_S](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/46a35a/32.png) [@Max\_S](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Max_S)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2019, 4:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/personal-responsibility-or-avoiding-responsibility/837550/257 "2019-08-02T16:42:54Z")
Among those of us who I think identify as conservative, I found these definitions: > [@Shodan](#): > > “Personal responsibility” means I am personally responsible for the things I personally did. > [@Max\_S](#): > > 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. > [@Scylla](#): > > Personal responsibility is just the ethic for how you choose to live your life, hence the “personal.” It has nothing to do with anybody else. > > The idea is that you be prudent and self reliant and avoid becoming becoming a burden on loved ones, or society at large. It’s a powerful tool. It’s about deciding not to be a victim and continuing to strive and believe that you are in control of your destiny when life knocks you down. > > All it really is is an attitude. It’s telling yourself that you are still in the fight when all you want to do is quit. > [@Kearsen1](#): > > Personal responsibility: You are free to make whatever decision you wish, those decisions come with consequences. I think **puddleglum** is a conservative, and I think he equates personal responsibility with self reliance (not totally sure): > [@puddleglum](#): > > 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 only thing that can help people is self reliance and if universally practiced it would solve nearly every political problem. And then I believe **WillFarnaby** is a libertarian, but his definition seems in line with the conservative ones: > [@WillFarnaby](#): > > 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. I believe **thorny\_locust** is not a conservative ([DEL]I’m[/DEL] she’s new here), but she offers the following which I pretty much agree with: > [@thorny\_locust](#): > > 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. I’m not sure how **Crane** identifies and I don’t fully agree with the rest of his argument, but he says this: > [@Crane](#): > > In the military I was taught that there is no responsibility without commensurate authority. That should apply to the Conservative concept of personal responsibility. To a certain extent, I think you stand out from the pack in saying the judgement of others’ personal responsibility has nothing to do with personal responsibility. I have trouble separating the idea of being “prudent and self reliant” from simply taking responsibility for one’s own actions. You seem to think there’s a difference, and further, that the difference somehow precludes judgement of others. I don’t follow you there. Prudence is just being reasonable. Self-reliance flows from self-discipline (pushing yourself to do what you need to do). If you keep discipline, you will realize that you can in fact do what you need to do. That is called self-confidence. After some time you will make the inference that you _will_ do what you need to do, and come to rely on your self-confidence. That is called self-reliance. Once you have self-confidence and self-reliance, you can start keeping promises to _other_ people. Not just explicit promises, but implicit ones too - for example when borrowing a lawnmower you implicitly promise to return it in good condition. If there is a reasonable expectation for you to do something after taking a certain action, then taking that action means you make the implicit promise. Other people notice that you keep your promises, and a pattern emerges. A person who keeps their promises is called a responsible person. These other people who notice a pattern of responsibility make the same inference as a judgement of your character, but this time it is called _personal responsibility_. Personal responsibility is like a AAA rating. It basically means that you keep your word; you take responsibility for your actions. Other people constantly rely on that, and you constantly rely on your judgement of other people’s personal responsibility. So really, the difference between personal responsibility and self-confidence is the difference between the words “a person’s house” and “my house”. Both are used to describe possession of a house, and similarly both personal responsibility and self-confidence describe the same concept. Self-reliability is therefore analogous to reliance upon someone’s personal responsibility. ~Max ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2019, 5:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/personal-responsibility-or-avoiding-responsibility/837550/258 "2019-08-02T17:40:49Z")
> [@Max\_S](#): > > I’m not sure how **Crane** identifies and I don’t fully agree with the rest of his argument, but he says this: > > > [@Crane](#): > > > > In the military I was taught that there is no responsibility without commensurate authority. That should apply to the Conservative concept of personal responsibility. > > To a certain extent, I think you stand out from the pack in saying the judgement of others’ personal responsibility has nothing to do with personal responsibility. **Crane** can speak for himself, but to me the idea of personal responsibility includes authority over yourself. You make your own decisions to the extent possible, and are allowed to suffer or enjoy the consequences to the extent possible. Whether or not other people think I am personally responsible shouldn’t matter - I am responsible. And I am, or should be, prepared to take the consequences without excuse. But if I make a decision and someone else makes a different decision, and it turns out well for me and badly for them, that’s not my fault any more than it’s theirs if it’s vice versa. Obviously these are general principles rather than 100% in every situation. But above you mentioned student loan debt, and child support. If I decide to take on student loan debt, and so does Joe X, and I wind up employed in my career field and Joe graduates with a degree in Communication and winds up in retail, we are both responsible for our outcomes. His choice of majors does not obligate me, nor does mine obligate him. Or I decide to have a child, and so does Joe. I get married first and stay married and support my child. He doesn’t get married, or he gets divorced, and has to pay child support. We are both still responsible for our child. Nothing about our differing circumstances absolves us - both on the hook, and the fact that it might be more difficult and painful for him to pay than for me to pay changes nothing. Now, we both lose our jobs. Guess what - nothing has changed for either of us. Sometimes no excuse is good enough. Sometimes you win, sometimes you lose. But “I will do what I want and if I fail someone else should pay for it” is not “personal responsibility”. That’s more like the “privatize profits and socialize risk” that liberals seem to object to with banks. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![k9bfriender](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/k9bfriender/32/3283_2.png) [@k9bfriender](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/k9bfriender)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2019, 6:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/personal-responsibility-or-avoiding-responsibility/837550/259 "2019-08-02T18:32:43Z")
> [@Wrenching\_Spanners](#): > > I disagree with the authors of the BOE’s paper For the purposes of this thread, the BOE and I will agree to disagree with you. > [@](#): > > You’re taking a general concept, that banks receive loan payments and then reloan those funds, a concept that fractional reserve banking, the subject that you brought up, depends on and you’re trying to refute it by bringing up a specific circumstance, and then using a poor cite that only marginally relates to that circumstance. You’re also arguing that lending is at a low point but ignoring that as recently as 2017, lending was at an all-time high. Most economists are worried that worldwide debt is too high, not too low. I used to have a bookmark with a real time listing of the excess reserve, but the computer that that was on is no longer with us, and I just grabbed the first cite that proved my point, that banks are not waiting on money to come back before they can make loans, and that cite did prove my point. Contrary to what you assert here, I did not argue that lending is at a low point, and so did not ignore that it was at an all time high, so that entire paragraph of yours is trying to attack a point I never made. I did say that banks are sitting on capital that they would like to lend out to qualified borrowers, but that in no way fits to your description of my argument. > [@](#): > > I’m suggesting it. If you forgive a set of student loans, you better ensure that no equivalent of future student loans is available. Because if it is, the next set of borrowers who’ve made bad lending decisions will expect their debt to be forgiven and will howl with outrage if they don’t receive the same giveaway the previous borrowers received. Yeah, I do think that the first step is to address how the students got into debt in the first place, then to address the debts that students have acquired already. I’ve pointed this out a few times, so for you to repeat this as an issue makes me wonder what exactly it is that you are trying to argue here. No moral hazard there. > [@](#): > > At the start of the thread, didn’t you object to whataboutism? I’m happy to respond, but I don’t want to react to something you object to. No, I did not object to whataboutism, I accused you of whataboutism, as this is a thread about "whether or not personal responsibility is even a value, and JohnT’s point about (if it is a value) it’s uniquely conservative. " as stated in the OP. Which would put my point about CEO’s writing giant paychecks on the back of bankrupting corporations a very valid question as to conservative values, and pointing at democrats being concerned about student loans is not. > [@](#): > > No. The would you say that the person that the party that is affiliated with conservatives nominated someone who exemplifies the ideals of personal responsibility? > [@](#): > > I’ve already refuted that. The students paid for their education. Their payments entered the economy. Those payments were based on borrowed funds. If the students made poor forecasting decisions about borrowing for their education, then their personal economy is certainly hurt. However, the effect that subset economy is offset by the subset that received the funds, the university economy. No, you disagreed with that. A disagreement is not a refutation. > [@](#): > > Anyway, enough about banking and economics. Fair enough, but I do recommend you just google the words “Lending creates money”, or “paying a loan destroys money”, as it seems that these are things that you are unaware of. > [@Wrenching\_Spanners](#): > > This is a thread hijack, which I started, but within modern times, I don’t think you can find a better government investment than vaccinations. The benefit/cost ratio is probably in the hundred-thousands. I agree and have stated that education is a societal investment. However, at some point, the beneficiaries of that investment need to pay it back. This is especially true if the students have received greater benefits than someone who opted out of those benefits due to cost. A better investment, as far as medical dollars and lives saved, sure. As an investment in stimulating the economy, especially into the future, not really. You say that at some point, the beneficiaries need to pay it back, and they will, in the form of taxes that go towards educating the next generation. When is the generation that got free education to the standards needed for a living wage, along with much cheaper college education if they wanted to go further going to “pay that back”? The students who receive the greater benefits will be higher earners, which means higher tax payers. > [@](#): > > Because at a certain point, societally necessary education turns into personally beneficial education. There’s no clear dividing line between the two, and indeed the point isn’t binary, but a crossing of a variable percentage threshold. Nevertheless, American society has determined that point to be high school graduation. Students who pursue college education are generally expected to pay for at least a part of their education and often the entirety. The students borrow student loans to receive the personally beneficial education. No one is forcing them to do so, and if the education is not personally beneficial to them, they can choose not to pursue it. We used to only give a 5th grade education, as that was what was needed in the workforce. We had about the same fight in making later grades paid by the public as we are now. I don’t know that American society has decided the point of “personally beneficial” education is high school. I think that is simply the status quo, that is simply how it is, and has been since the last time that American Society decided that it needed to better educate its citizens in order to have the workforce with the skills it needed. The entire point of this is to recognize that American society has declared that a high school diploma is not enough to be a fully engaged and productive member of society. You may disagree, but the companies out that that won’t talk to you without a degree show that your disagreement is based on your opinion on what you are willing to allow someone else to have, but is not based on the facts. As is, college education is highly subsidized by the state. Is that also something that you disagree with? > [@](#): > > The students are making an investment in their university education that they will have to pay off later, unless that debt is relieved. While attending university, they are undergoing an expense which they are not paying off with an asset, but are instead accepting a liability. My argument is that they are knowingly accepting this liability, which will need to be paid off later. My argument is that they are also making an investment into the future of society. They are making an investment in some companies future workforce. The investment they are making in themselves is one that is made with inadequate information and even fewer choices. > [@](#): > > If I’m not creating a strawman, why are you accusing me of doing so? Also, in a thread discussing personal responsibility, to state that a question relating to personal responsibility is a false question is a dodge of the question. How does my point that your question is not relevant to anything I said indicate that you are _not_ creating a strawman. That is exactly what a strawman is. You demanded to know what statement you were strawmanning, when I said none, that was not getting you off the hook for making things up, that was pointing out that your fabrication was not related to anything I had said. In fact, the question that you are asking there is a strawman question as well, as once again, it assumes facts not in evidence. Your “question” is not relevant, and is purely meant as an accusation. This is not a good faith debating tactic. It is meant only as a gotcha question, and has no reason or ability to advance a productive conversation. > [@](#): > > I’m sure there’s more to the remainder of your response to debate, but I think this current post is long enough. There’s a bit you did skip there, but that’s fine. Some quick summaries, I do not agree with Warren’s position on student loans as the best thing to do, but I do agree with her position as a starting negotiating point when dealing with people who want to do nothing. I also do not feel as though students are given a real choice. They are told to either go into an enormous amount of debt, or they will have to struggle to even find a living wage job. I also had a question that you avoided, but I would guess the answer, based on what you have said here, is “No.” The question, "Do you think that society should provide our next generation with the tools that are required to succeed? " (If I wanted to make it a strawman, as in your accusatory questions, I would say, “Why do you want future generations to fail?”) Given that tuition is raising faster than inflation, and that there are fewer and fewer opportunities for those without a college diploma to get ahead, this is a problem that will only get worse. How bad are you willing to let things get before you will allow it to be addressed as more than a problem for the individual students to deal with? Personally I think that if we allow our future generations to have fewer opportunities and resources than we do, then that is the definition of the failure of civilization. ---
**Author:** ![thorny\_locust](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/thorny_locust/32/431_2.png) [@thorny\_locust](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/thorny_locust)\ **Post date:** [August 3, 2019, 12:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/personal-responsibility-or-avoiding-responsibility/837550/260 "2019-08-03T00:42:08Z")
> [@Max\_S](#): > > I believe **thorny\_locust** is not a conservative Correct. I’m occasionally idiosyncratic but usually mostly in the liberal camp. – will probably have more to say in this thread again eventually; but I need to go back and sort through several pages and think about what I’m saying, and don’t have a lot of time to spare right now. ---
**Author:** ![Kearsen1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Kearsen1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kearsen1)\ **Post date:** [August 9, 2019, 6:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/personal-responsibility-or-avoiding-responsibility/837550/261 "2019-08-09T18:42:15Z")
> [@Max\_S](#): > > Technically that would be what I’m talking about, but I had in mind situations more along the lines of my [POST=21778770]post #218[/POST]. People with heavy obligations that cannot be discharged with bankruptcy, such as medical, student loans, child support. To the point that they work multiple jobs and still don’t make a “living wage”. > > ~Max Max, are you under the assumption that the people with bankruptcies, student loans, and/or child support are blameless for their own choices? Because they don’t make enough to fulfill those obligations? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/personal-responsibility-or-avoiding-responsibility/837550.md?page=12) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/personal-responsibility-or-avoiding-responsibility/837550.md?page=14)