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.
Thanks. I acknowledge that both of your responses are excellent rebuttals and deserve consideration.
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.
I’m quite sure it’s your responsibility to pay taxes. (And I don’t know what you learned in your civics classes, so I can’t comment on that.) I’m also quite sure that if you do your own math on what your part of your “collective responsibility” is and attempt to only pay that much, nice men in suits (or uniforms) will come and have a chat with you about your underpayment.
And we (our government, that is) deal with problems by looking at the problems and addressing them directly, specifically addressing their current causes. Which almost certainly aren’t events of hundreds of years ago. Or at least that’s what they’re supposed to be doing.
So, correct me if I am wrong, I just have to accept what the men with guns say is my my fair share and pay it? Gee, doesn’t seem quite right…The old Virginia familes et. al. profited mightily from slavery and hold onto wealth and property accrued through it, but I should just shut up and pay?
You could vote for people who are willing to raise taxes on those southerners holding on to generational wealth from the slavery era and redistribute that money to areas of society that need it. Just an idea. You do get a say in what the men with guns do.
You are, no doubt, assuming that I voted for Trump and that I am a Republican. It is to laugh.
However, you are correct about the voting and having a say. That is exactly what I alluded to earlier.
Max:
Personal responsibility is not about judging others or expecting others not to take help when they need it. It is certainly not an excuse to refrain from helping other people in need, or withholding aid from them.
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. I think it shares a lot in common with classical Roman or Greek stoicism like Epictetus or Marcus Aurelius, or Seneca.
How does that translate to political policy?
It does not, directly, though perhaps it informs how we go about managing our safety net as a society in terms of avoiding the lure of moral hazard.
Banks that take excessive risk knowing that they can be bailed out because they are too big to fail is a problem. People who rely on welfare or unemployment if they don’t really need it is another problem.
You want to avoid this without shaming or withholding aid from those who really need it.
It’s a conundrum.
I don’t know how to implement personal responsibility at the corporate or individual level through government, because it really should be a cultural thing.
It’s a declaration that no one else needs to be considered, just the self: " It has nothing to do with anybody else." Kinda the opposite of a political policy or even awareness, though.
“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.
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
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.
I get part of what you are saying. Personal responsibility of oneself has a flip-side. To say “I am responsible for my actions” does not imply that “I am not responsible for not-my-actions”. You are saying there is an alternative interpretation, “at the very least I am responsible for my actions”. I agree and will adopt this principle, which doesn’t resolve the problem of theodicy/natural disasters but separates that problem from the concept of personal responsibility. There are still other conundrums, such as when one has dependents (legal or otherwise) and accepting the consequences of your own action appears to cause more suffering overall than refusing to do so.
That being said, I still think personal responsibility is a way to judge people. I am responsible; I am irresponsible; he is irresponsible; he is a responsible person; etc. Or more specifically, he has a sense of personal responsibility; he has no sense of personal responsibility. Perhaps you think these are mere colloquialisms or empty phrases, or that they are a misuse of the words. I disagree, these phrases mean exactly as they read. They are judgements of people and in many cases I think they are warranted and useful, for example when a bank is evaluating a person for a loan, when discussing the prospects of an interviewee, or when a friend asks for your opinion on a prospective date.
I also believe a negative judgement of personal responsibility should only be made when one is familiar with the particulars or has given the person a chance to explain themselves. Weird stuff happens every day and people might have very good reasons for doing or not-doing whatever appears to offend my standard of personal responsibility.
~Max
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.
- 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
- 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?
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?
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.
I hear you. I love reading about and understanding basic principles, ethics, the roots of our culture, and I really do think that personal responsibility has basically been handed down to us from, and is an abridged version of classical stoicism.
I would again recommend Epictetus, Aurelius, or Seneca to get a good sense of it.
To judge somebody on their personal responsibility or lack thereof is a bit of anti-stoic/personal responsibility thing to do.
What I think happens is that you have people who have not needed help and are fortunate or lucky enough to have their shit together in such a way that they are ok and have always been ok. They take the fact that they have never needed help as proof of their personal responsibility. They lay claim to it and look down on people who do need help or suffer an unfortunate setback as lacking it.
Somebody like Epictetus who was a prisoner and had his body broken through torture, and became a penniless wander… his concept of personal responsibility had a bit more bite.
When I was injured as a child my father told me that I really didn’t belong in the hospital, because it really wasn’t that bad, and it was my job to heal up and be tough and work with the doctors to the best of my ability so that they could focus on the kids that really needed the help. He told me it was my job to be the example, so that it would help the others, and to help out as much as I could.
This was a powerful thought. It told me that I was an active agent in my own recovery, and that I had responsibility towards others. Having skin debrided is basically hell on earth. But, if you think that other people will have it far worse than you, and you need to be an example for them, and you need to not fight the doctors, you start to yourself “this is not so bad, I can get through this.” Such an attitude was a gift that saved me from self-pity, despair and wallowing.
A very interesting book “Deep Survival” makes a similar case. It is a study of people who have been in extreme situations. A surprising fact, is that if you are in life threatening situation your chances of survival are much higher if you have somebody who is dependent on you. This is demonstrated time and again. It is at first counterintuitive, but it starts to make sense the more you think about it.
There have been plane crashes in Alaska. A single person or a couple of uninjured people don’t fare as well as say, somebody who is injured but also has to help somebody with two broken legs. If you are caring for other people, you don’t pity yourself. You don’t wallow.
When you take personal responsibility, you are telling yourself that you are valuable and involved, that you are a positive agent for change, it is proof of self-worth.
One of the great problems of the social safety net is that a “handout” robs them of this sense of value and worth, not to other people, but to themselves.
I remember reading about the Japanese welfare system way way back (so I may have this wrong,) but that system demands things of its beneficiaries so that it does not rob their sense of worth (their culture is different, and I don’t think it’s directly applicable to us.)
Humans are strange social creatures. We will do things for others that we would not do to help ourselves if we feel responsible to them.
Personal responsibility is about who you are to yourself, in light of the respect you feel towards others. I think it is the opposite of selfishness, though it is powerful to the self.
Do you think if a single parent loses their job, gets injured, or for some other reason can’t afford rent/food/medical care for a time deserves to have the state take their children away? Wouldn’t SNAP etc. be cheaper for society then assuming the entire responsibility for raising that child? You can’t always force parents to be as responsible as you wish them to be, but those kids are still Americans and deserve to be treated as such and shouldn’t be allowed to starve to death or die from treatable conditions due to lack of insurance or ability to pay medical bills, and simply taking every kid away from parents you deem irresponsible by your definition does not seem like what we should be doing in this country. Maybe we just need to accept that some people are not going to be as responsible as you want them to be, but innocent kids should not bear the cost of that. If we are to be the enlightened society that we claim to be, then maybe we just need to deal with that reality instead of trying to justify why we don’t need to help those kids.