# 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:** 7
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2019, 6:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/personal-responsibility-or-avoiding-responsibility/837550/122 "2019-07-26T18:18:35Z")
> [@Crane](#): > > Scylla, > > Under the corporate form I can build 12 houses, sell them; then bankrupt the corporation. The next day I begin building 12 more houses down the block. The first 12 home owners have no access to me for complaints of quality, drainage etc because the entity that built their houses no longer exists. It is the way housing developments are organized. Ok. So is this a failure inherent in the structure of corporations or in the way that we govern them? I’d say the latter. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2019, 6:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/personal-responsibility-or-avoiding-responsibility/837550/123 "2019-07-26T18:57:40Z")
> [@Crane](#): > > Under the corporate form I can build 12 houses, sell them; then bankrupt the corporation. The next day I begin building 12 more houses down the block. The first 12 home owners have no access to me for complaints of quality, drainage etc because the entity that built their houses no longer exists. It is the way housing developments are organized. I [don’t know that this is necessarily true](https://www.upcounsel.com/can-you-sue-a-closed-corporation). Depending on what you mean by “[bankrupting](https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/how-to-sue-a-company-that-has-filed-for-bankruptcy.html)” the company. And [declaring bankruptcy to avoid liability is not as straightforward](https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/reasons-the-trustee-court-might-dismiss-your-bankrutpcy-case.html) as you appear to believe. Regards, Shodan ---
**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 26, 2019, 6:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/personal-responsibility-or-avoiding-responsibility/837550/124 "2019-07-26T18:58:28Z")
Scylla, The topic is personal responsibility in the context of Conservative values. If personal responsibility is a conservative value then Conservatives must reject the corporate form because the corporate form is constructed to eliminate personal responsibility. It is their purpose, not the result of ‘failure’. ---
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2019, 7:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/personal-responsibility-or-avoiding-responsibility/837550/125 "2019-07-26T19:04:55Z")
> [@Crane](#): > > Scylla, > > The topic is personal responsibility in the context of Conservative values. If personal responsibility is a conservative value then Conservatives must reject the corporate form because the corporate form is constructed to eliminate personal responsibility. It is their purpose, not the result of ‘failure’. You seem to think that conservatives are required to take a view of different forms of responsibility straight out of a “Highlander” movie, i.e. “There can be only one!!!” This is not true. Personal responsibility is the responsibility a person can have. Corporate responsibility is what a corporation has. They are not mutually exclusive in the least. ---
**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 26, 2019, 7:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/personal-responsibility-or-avoiding-responsibility/837550/126 "2019-07-26T19:09:06Z")
> [@puddleglum](#): > > How does having personal responsibility allow a woman to kill her unborn baby? Personal responsibility means taking responsibility for your own decisions. If someone decides to take an action like having sex it is their responsibility to deal with the foreseeable outcome of that decision. Not to kill another person to evade the consequences of their action. “…kill her unborn baby…” Is an emoting phrase. Terminating a pregnancy must be the personal responsibility of the pregnant woman regardless of your value judgement of the result. Unless, of course, personal responsibility is not a Conservative value. Is that your position? Is it the Conservative position that the state should control all sexual activity - with whom, whether or not licensed, appliances incorporated, associated medical procedures, disposition of resulting children -? ---
**Author:** ![Scumpup](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ce73a5/32.png) [@Scumpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scumpup)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2019, 7:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/personal-responsibility-or-avoiding-responsibility/837550/127 "2019-07-26T19:15:29Z")
> [@Crane](#): > > Unless, of course, personal responsibility is not a Conservative value. Is that your position? It’d be really swell if you quit acting as though the definition of personal responsibility in light of Conservative values that you asserted above is the accepted definition and that all answers must conform to it. ---
**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 26, 2019, 7:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/personal-responsibility-or-avoiding-responsibility/837550/128 "2019-07-26T19:17:35Z")
Scylla, Sorry, I did not make my point clear. The reason for the existence of the corporate form is to shield the owners from legal and/or fiscal responsibility. This is not an aberration. It is the stated purpose of the corporate form. It is my observation that Conservative Personal Responsibility takes the form of a cult myth. Perhaps someone can provide a Conservative definition of personal responsibility. ---
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2019, 7:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/personal-responsibility-or-avoiding-responsibility/837550/129 "2019-07-26T19:17:45Z")
> [@Crane](#): > > “…kill her unborn baby…” Is an emoting phrase. Terminating a pregnancy must be the personal responsibility of the pregnant woman regardless of your value judgement of the result. > > Unless, of course, personal responsibility is not a Conservative value. Is that your position? > > Is it the Conservative position that the state should control all sexual activity - with whom, whether or not licensed, appliances incorporated, associated medical procedures, disposition of resulting children -? I have to agree with Puddlegum and state that you have a very odd and noncomforming definition of personal which I don’t accept. ---
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2019, 7:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/personal-responsibility-or-avoiding-responsibility/837550/130 "2019-07-26T19:31:53Z")
> [@Crane](#): > > Scylla, > > Sorry, I did not make my point clear. > > The reason for the existence of the corporate form is to shield the owners from legal and/or fiscal responsibility. This is not an aberration. It is the stated purpose of the corporate form. That would be the purpose of an LLC. It is not the purpose of corporations in general. > [@](#): > > Perhaps someone can provide a Conservative definition of personal responsibility. I did so earlier in the thread. It is the idea that respect for both the self and others means that one should strive to live their life diligently and prudently so as to minimize the chances of becoming a burden on others, and to maximize one’s utility both to themselves and other. It means you take care of yourself so that others do not have to. It follows from that naturally that you accept the consequences of your actions, but more importantly that you have the duty to be aware of them. It’s really a philosophical thing, as I addressed earlier, and I think it can be traced pretty directly to classical stoicism (the most underrated and least understood philosophy of all time.). I’d suggest going back and reading my first few posts in this thread. ---
**Author:** ![Wrenching\_Spanners](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/ecb155/32.png) [@Wrenching\_Spanners](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wrenching_Spanners)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2019, 8:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/personal-responsibility-or-avoiding-responsibility/837550/131 "2019-07-26T20:37:35Z")
> [@Crane](#): > > Under the corporate form I can build 12 houses, sell them; then bankrupt the corporation. The next day I begin building 12 more houses down the block. The first 12 home owners have no access to me for complaints of quality, drainage etc because the entity that built their houses no longer exists. It is the way housing developments are organized. Absent any attempts to avoid debt, why would you need to bankrupt the corporation? You could simply shut it down, or leave it as a shell with no assets. Much cheaper. Is your belief that setting up schemes to deliver poor quality products and avoid warranties is an example of conservative values? ---
**Author:** ![Kearsen1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Kearsen1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kearsen1)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2019, 8:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/personal-responsibility-or-avoiding-responsibility/837550/132 "2019-07-26T20:41:19Z")
> [@Crane](#): > > WS, > > I stated that personal responsibility requires that all women have authority over decisions for which they are responsible. I did not deal with the motives of Conservatives. > > The issue is not a matter of adoption or male attitudes toward birth control. Personal responsibility simply requires personal authority. Having sexual relations is not an absolute ‘sin’. It is a decision one makes. Birth control is not 100% effective. An unwanted pregnancy can be terminated. It is a matter of personal authority and responsibility. > > So, if personal responsibility is a Conservative value then Conservatives support abortion. > > Of course we have yet to define Conservative and list Conservative values. Personal responsibility: You are free to make whatever decision you wish, those decisions come with consequences. If abortion was illegal, then the responsibility to raise said child is to the mother and father who created him/her/ ---
**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 26, 2019, 8:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/personal-responsibility-or-avoiding-responsibility/837550/133 "2019-07-26T20:53:53Z")
WS, By bankrupting the company, you avoid any subsequent consequences. It is routinely done in construction, mining and oil drilling. The incorporators take out the money then terminate the corporation and with it, responsibility. Any spill over costs are paid by the tax payers. ---
**Author:** ![Wrenching\_Spanners](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/ecb155/32.png) [@Wrenching\_Spanners](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wrenching_Spanners)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2019, 9:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/personal-responsibility-or-avoiding-responsibility/837550/134 "2019-07-26T21:11:27Z")
> [@Crane](#): > > The topic is personal responsibility in the context of Conservative values. If personal responsibility is a conservative value then Conservatives must reject the corporate form because\*\* the corporate form is constructed to eliminate personal responsibility.\*\* It is their purpose, not the result of ‘failure’. My bolding. This statement is both true and naive. A purpose of corporations is to limit the liability of investors. If I invest £1000 in an incorporated shipping voyage, if that voyage goes bad, then I lose my £1000. However, I’m not on hook to the banks that loaned money to the corporation to charter and fit out the ship. The banks have taken on the risk that a voyage may go bad, and accordingly charge a higher rate of interest. Offsetting their risk is that with the existence of incorporated voyages, more ship voyages will occur and the banks have more opportunities to issue loans and receive high-yield interest payments. I’ll agree that this reduction in individual risk equates to a reduction in individual responsibility. However, if you think that’s a bad thing, you’re arguing against over 400 years of history. ---
**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 26, 2019, 9:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/personal-responsibility-or-avoiding-responsibility/837550/135 "2019-07-26T21:16:33Z")
Scylla, The early discussion centered on social welfare. That is one facet of personal responsibility. Internally personal responsibility may be a philosophy or state of mind but in the context of citizenship it is the sphere of events that result from ones actions - those things over which one has authority. Consider: > **[2 girls killed on an ATV falling down a mine shaft](https://www.can-amforum.com/threads/2-girls-killed-on-an-atv-falling-down-a-mine-shaft.7389/)** > > Since they both ended up down that mine shaft I'm presuming they were illegally riding two up? 13 and 10 two up on an ATVso I'll also presume it was larger then a 90cc atv. Hard to blame the mine shaft or ATV for this tragedy. We have to be smarter... Open mine and well shafts are an ever present danger. In the case above, the original owner abandoned the mine shaft without closing the opening. Is he personally responsible for the death? ---
**Author:** ![Wrenching\_Spanners](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/ecb155/32.png) [@Wrenching\_Spanners](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wrenching_Spanners)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2019, 9:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/personal-responsibility-or-avoiding-responsibility/837550/136 "2019-07-26T21:32:10Z")
> [@Crane](#): > > By bankrupting the company, you avoid any subsequent consequences. It is routinely done in construction, mining and oil drilling. > > The incorporators take out the money then terminate the corporation and with it, responsibility. Any spill over costs are paid by the tax payers. There’s no need to bankrupt the company to avoid any subsequent consequences. The liability of investors is already limited. You seem to be under the impression that a bankruptcy provides a layer of protection against nefarious external payments. If anything, the opposite is true. Debtors have no right to file suit against receivers of corporate payments. Bankruptcy administrators do. I’ve just realised that this is a hijack of the thread, and while I’m interested in any feedback you care to provide, unless it relates to personal responsibility, I’m going to abstain from responding. If you’d like a discussion of the ethics or functionality of corporate bankruptcy with my input, please start a new thread. ---
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2019, 9:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/personal-responsibility-or-avoiding-responsibility/837550/137 "2019-07-26T21:39:53Z")
> [@Crane](#): > > Scylla, > > The early discussion centered on social welfare. That is one facet of personal responsibility. > > Internally personal responsibility may be a philosophy or state of mind but in the context of citizenship it is the sphere of events that result from ones actions - those things over which one has authority. > > Consider: > > [2 girls killed on an ATV falling down a mine shaft | Can-Am ATV Forum](https://www.can-amforum.com/threads/2-girls-killed-on-an-atv-falling-down-a-mine-shaft.7389/) > > Open mine and well shafts are an ever present danger. In the case above, the original owner abandoned the mine shaft without closing the opening. Is he personally responsible for the death? You are talking about liability. ---
**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 26, 2019, 9:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/personal-responsibility-or-avoiding-responsibility/837550/138 "2019-07-26T21:43:48Z")
Scylla, Yes, liability is another term for personal responsibility. ---
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2019, 9:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/personal-responsibility-or-avoiding-responsibility/837550/139 "2019-07-26T21:49:11Z")
No. We are not talking about the same thing. ---
**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 26, 2019, 10:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/personal-responsibility-or-avoiding-responsibility/837550/140 "2019-07-26T22:03:14Z")
OK - my definition of personal responsibility is that one is accountable for all acts personal, physical, legal and financial over which one has authority. Show me yours. ---
**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:** [July 26, 2019, 10:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/personal-responsibility-or-avoiding-responsibility/837550/141 "2019-07-26T22:31:16Z")
> [@Scylla](#): > > Not all jobs can or should pay a living wage, because some aren’t meant to and aren’t needed to. I worked in a deli after school while in High School, part time. It was a great job a high schooler could get, supplementing the two owners during peak times. You know, after I posted last night I thought "I bet that bit about such jobs being meant for teenagers whose families are well able to support them is going to show up’. And if that were really what was going on, there’d be something in that argument. But for there to be anything in that argument, then it would have to be in the ordinary course of events for nearly everyone to work such jobs as teenagers – and probably for a while afterwards, because there’s massively more poorly paid work than could possibly be done by teenagers, especially if they’re supposed to have any chance to go to school; and then it would need to be in the ordinary course of events for nearly everyone, by the time they were old enough to start raising kids, to start being paid enough to support themselves and to support those kids. But that’s not what happens. What happens is that yes, some teenagers who don’t really need the money take such jobs for a while and then move on to much better paid work; some other people never do the poorly paid work at all; and a whole lot of others wind up in such work as adults, because most of it is, after all, the basic work that needs to be done to keep the society going, so we need a whole lot of people to do it. > [@Scylla](#): > > If you raise the minimum wage, some of those jobs will just go away, depriving people of work. Some of those jobs will be altered, maybe combined with more skilled jobs or requirements raising the barrier for entry. Then too, what is a living wage. It is surely a different number in a small town in Montana, than it is in San Francisco. It is also a different number for someone on SS, or a single person versus one with a family to support, or a student working part time. > > Or all workers the same? Or, are some better than others? Why can’t a valuable worker command a higher price? You raise the minimum wage, you are pulling from the pool of cash which could potentially reward quality work, punishing high quality workers and rewarding the marginal. > > Raising the minimum wage is making a very arrogant and dangerous statement: that you know better about what a business can afford to spend, and what their labor is worth than the business. You are also telling the worker that you know better what is good for them than they do. > > It’s a dangerous thing with unintended consequences. I’m 68. During my life ever since I became old enough to notice, every time that there have been proposals to raise the minimum wage I’ve seen those same arguments. And every time, sooner or later, the minimum wage gets raised; generally not enough, but far more than those people making the arguments want it raised. And every time so far the roof has not fallen in and society has not collapsed. Alternatively, of course, we could leave wages where they are, but provide benefits to the people in those jobs so that they can still live decent lives – and do so without giving them a hard time about qualifying, without making them worry every month that they won’t have enough to manage, and in particular without complaining that they’re not being personally responsible and therefore don’t really deserve any help. > [@Shodan](#): > > your notion that property taxes are regressive. Can you explain how a person with a million-dollar home pays less in property taxes than a person living in an apartment? Rhetorical question, obviously, because you can’t. Theoretically, property taxes aren’t regressive, because they’re generally based on the value of the property, and rich people do indeed buy or rent more expensive houses than poor people do (though as there are multiple factors involved that’s not a perfect match.) But they are indeed often regressive in practice, because current value of a home is often drastically disconnected from both current income and overall wealth of its owner(s). People don’t pack up and move every year to a house or apartment commensurate with their current income. (If they did, not only would this be massively disruptive both of community ties and of individual lives, but it would be horrendously expensive.) It’s quite common, in many areas, for people to still be living in property they purchased twenty or fifty years ago, or that their parents or grandparents purchased even longer ago. Many places that were cheap when they were bought have become horrendously expensive due to accidents of location – lakefront property even if liable to flooding, for instance, is now often priced extremely high. And the tax assessments are based on what somebody – almost anybody, including someone from a densely populated area on the far side of the country – would pay for it. So people with almost no financial resources can wind up stuck with the same property tax the millionaire is paying. > [@Scylla](#): > > A lack of incentives would mean that everybody is so satisfied with what they are doing, they are unwilling to change jobs or move (in the context of our discussion). That is in fact, the evidence, the data is suggesting is occuring. Huh? A lack of incentives means that people don’t see any likely chance that changing what they’re doing will produce any improvement. That doesn’t mean that they’re satisfied. It only means that they don’t want to go through a lot of extra trouble and disruption in order to wind up no better off, and considering the costs of said trouble and disruption quite possibly worse off. > [@Scylla](#): > > Maybe people like being coal miners, working their Dad’s job in their hometown making a halfway decent wage. They don’t want to leave everything they know, the place they have been their whole lives, friends and family, and uproot and try to do something new somewhere else. That’s tough scary, risky and unpleasant. > > But maybe we need less coal, and the economy has moved on from coal because it is dirty and inefficient and destructive to mine. > > How do you get that coal miner to give up what he has known all his life, the only thing, and abandon everything to go somewhere else and try something new? > > There are three ways: > > 1. He is a natural adventurer and will give it a go. > 2. You offer him something so incredibly awesome at such a high wage, that sounds so good, he can’t say no. > 3. Things get so unpleasant and difficult that he no longer stays. > > 1and 2 are nice those rare times they occur. The market takes care of #3. > > If you interfere with that maybe you are helping him, but maybe you are just prolonging his misery in his current circumstances while depriving him of the better future waiting for him. > > Sadly, people are stubborn, and oftentimes things have to get truly terrible before people will abandon what they know. > > Do I like it or want it this way? No, but that is the unfortunate reality we must recognize. No, that’s not the unfortunate reality we must recognize. You’ve entirely missed possibility 4: We as a society invest in plants manufacturing solar panels, windmills and windmill equipment, and whatever else actually is currently needed; site these plants in areas where coal mines and other obsolete or otherwise unfavored jobs are dying; and provide training and work in the area where the people losing their jobs are already living, so they don’t need to move away from the places they’ve lived their whole lives, their friends and family, and not so incidentally the support structure provided by those friends and family, which is probably all that’s keeping them going right now. We could use for that purpose some of the [$649 billion](https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesellsmoor/2019/06/15/united-states-spend-ten-times-more-on-fossil-fuel-subsidies-than-education/) we’re currently spending to subsidize fossil fuels. > [@puddleglum](#): > > The problem with this is that if the market fairly values unskilled workers at a price below the minimum wage then either the employers altruistically pay them more than they are worth or do not hire them at all. The latter is much more likely. Thus those with the lowest skills are unemployable and have to be taken care of by everyone else instead of supporting themselves at a low paying job. But the whole point being made here is that they’re not supporting themselves at a low paying job; because those jobs don’t pay enough for people to support themselves on. > [@Scylla](#): > > I did so earlier in the thread. It is the idea that respect for both the self and others means that one should strive to live their life diligently and prudently so as to minimize the chances of becoming a burden on others, and to maximize one’s utility both to themselves and other. It means you take care of yourself so that others do not have to. It follows from that naturally that you accept the consequences of your actions, but more importantly that you have the duty to be aware of them… So you do need to be aware of the consequences, and are responsible for them, if the pesticide used to grow your grapes is killing children in the country in which the grapes are grown but you buy those grapes even though you could afford to buy ones grown without doing such damage? I thought in post 88 that you were giving being aware of the consequences of which food you choose to buy as an example of something you thought was absurd to bother with. Maybe I was wrong. And we are all a burden on each other. It’s unavoidable. We should all do our best to carry our share of the burden; but claiming you can be entirely self sufficient requires a very narrow and temporary definition of “self sufficient.” You are dependent, among other things, on the work being done by the people in those jobs which don’t pay enough to live on. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/personal-responsibility-or-avoiding-responsibility/837550.md?page=6) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/personal-responsibility-or-avoiding-responsibility/837550.md?page=8)