Political Theory

Re: the decline of self-responsibility

Michel — Wed, 27 Jun 2012 15:42:39 GMT

@OP

I think you're absolutely right. Freedom brings responsibility. If people can avoid being liable for their actions, they will do so. We see this not only where the state put his nose on (that is, almost everything), but in our personal lives too. The majority of people always try to run away from responsibility, hence their dependence of the state.

Re: the decline of self-responsibility

Clayton — Tue, 26 Jun 2012 21:12:16 GMT

@anarcken: That's the whole point - licensure and permitting is a limitation of liability, not the other way around. It's legalism. "We passed inspections, our hands are clean." Cause-and-effect - the very foundation of the human notion of justice - goes right out the window.

Clayton -

Re: the decline of self-responsibility

jdkdsgn — Tue, 26 Jun 2012 20:37:37 GMT

I like your reasoning. I was actually thinking something very similar while watching the EURO cup. England versus Italy (great game by the way): soccer players have been known to exaggerate falls and injuries in order to strategically help their team on the pitch. With the slightest touch, a player goes down and looks to the referee for justice to be dealt.

I think of our government as the referee, and obviously the citizenry as the players -- continually looking to the government as a 'dealer of justice', or referee. I wonder what the solution to this obviously exaggerated and disreputable behavior on the soccer pitch could be, and furthermore if it could be abstracted to present a solution for us and the governmental authority. I have some thoughts, but not so fleshed out - I imagine Rothbard solves these issues in his EOL.

Anyway, just my thoughts! Thanks for the post, bud.

Re: the decline of self-responsibility

anarcken — Tue, 26 Jun 2012 16:20:10 GMT

Gero:

She may not be guilty of driving under the influence, but she is still liable. Whether she crashed due to alcohol, distracting music, sleepiness, or some other reason, she is still liable.

that's my point. she is liable, but she feels she's not at fault because of the arbitrary number she failed to blow. imagine if there were a way to gauge sleepiness. if she couldn't handle sleepiness well, but fell below the number created that was considered "safe" sleepiness, she wouldn't feel at fault. although, she would still be liable, but that's not my argument.

Gero:

Blaming the FDA or another government agency can occur. Is this an intentional government plan? I doubt it. Assume that the FDA didn’t exist. Instead, a private alternative like Consumer Reports, Underwriters Laboratories, or another firm was responsible for testing drugs, but the firm made a mistake by approving a very risky drug. People would be justifiably upset with the firm’s failure. People cannot be informed about every decision. That is why experts are used (like drug testing firms for pharmaceutical, realtors for buildings, physicians for medicine, car mechanics for the variety of automobiles, and so forth). Unless one is a super genius, one cannot determine the safety of everything which is why the job is outsourced to others.

If the FDA makes a bad decision, the taxpayers are stuck with it. They cannot withdraw their funding. If a private firm makes a bad decision, goodbye customers and shareholders and hello critical media coverage and lawsuits.

if the fda was private, there would probably be more than one. people would have to choose companies based on merit, not on trust that "they care about us". like people say about the government, and its monopolies. obviously we can't know everything about everything. specialization is a wonderful thing. but people could definitely be paying more attention to the things they put (or don't put) into their bodies. this would happen if not for government monopolies. and that's my point. the state creates a state (heh) where people don't have to take responsibility for their actions, because their overlords - i mean, their caretakers - do it for them.

Re: the decline of self-responsibility

Gero — Tue, 26 Jun 2012 03:07:45 GMT

She may not be guilty of driving under the influence, but she is still liable. Whether she crashed due to alcohol, distracting music, sleepiness, or some other reason, she is still liable.

“i think it's obvious here that the state, or state monopolies, create a society where people can shift their blame and not have to take responsibility for their own action. is my analysis wrong? any further insights?”

Blaming the FDA or another government agency can occur. Is this an intentional government plan? I doubt it. Assume that the FDA didn’t exist. Instead, a private alternative like Consumer Reports, Underwriters Laboratories, or another firm was responsible for testing drugs, but the firm made a mistake by approving a very risky drug. People would be justifiably upset with the firm’s failure. People cannot be informed about every decision. That is why experts are used (like drug testing firms for pharmaceutical, realtors for buildings, physicians for medicine, car mechanics for the variety of automobiles, and so forth). Unless one is a super genius, one cannot determine the safety of everything which is why the job is outsourced to others.

If the FDA makes a bad decision, the taxpayers are stuck with it. They cannot withdraw their funding. If a private firm makes a bad decision, goodbye customers and shareholders and hello critical media coverage and lawsuits.

the decline of self-responsibility

anarcken — Tue, 26 Jun 2012 00:46:39 GMT

so i've been thinking about how people don't take responsibility for their actions as much as they used to (or so it seems). i'm of the cynical belief that the state is the cause of most immorality, and other like behavior. what got me thinking was an argument i had with someone about drunk driving. they abhorred my tales of drunken driving, claiming "i could have killed someone", etc. i told her, "but i didn't kill someone". i'm probably a better driver "drunk" than all the jackals out there on their cell phones, putting on make-up, etc. i told her i go off the basis of if i am able to safely control my vehicle, not some standardized number of .08. i asked her who came up with that number, and why it should apply to all persons. she claimed it didn't matter. she's assuming then, that a 90 pound girl who blows a .08 is just as able as someone with efficient adh enzymes, or a 250 pound male, to control her vehicle. the conversation promptly ended with her saying the number should then be 0. anyway, this got me thinking; if that 90 pound girl had an alcohawk and blew a .08 before taking off for home, and subsequently injured someone because she couldn't control her vehicle, she would point to the .08 as an excuse. it wasn't her fault, the state said she could drive if she were .08 or below. she had no need to consider her ability to drive, and therefore, she's not at fault. i started wondering, what else could this apply to?

the housing crisis. if i have it correctly, the government told banks to approve risky loans, because people deserved homes. the banks were hesitant until the government told them they would buy these risky loans from them. the people receiving these loans knew they couldn't afford the houses they were buying, but the government told them they could, so they did. when it all came full circle, people wanted to blame the banks (or less so, government) instead of themselves. along the same lines is cheap credit. people buy things totally beyond their means, because the interest rate is so low, and they "deserve" it. when they get in over their heads, they claim it's not their fault and demand bankruptcy or loan repayment leniency.

consider also the use of pharmaceuticals. people are told by the fda that such and such a drug is safe, and without looking into it, or its possible effects, take it. then, when they become even more ill because of the drug, they don't want to blame themselves for taking a risky drug, but the fda for approving it. on another, less serious, but similar note, movie ratings. a monopolized rating agency rates this movie pg-13. they let their kids attend, but regret their decision, because it revealed unappealing behavior or language, whathaveyou. instead of researching the film, and deciding if it is decent for their children, they want to blame the mpaa.

i think it's obvious here that the state, or state monopolies, create a society where people can shift their blame and not have to take responsibility for their own action. is my analysis wrong? any further insights?