Personal Responsibility
This post is in response to a comment made on Gary Borque’s article Why I am a Conservative on his blog Both Worlds. I feel that my response bears repeating here because personal responsibility is a Libertarian virtue which often goes overlooked. Also, I encourage everyone to read Gary’s original post as well as the comments to his post. For those of you anxiously waiting for What I Have Learned From Air America: Part II, I should have it posted by Friday.
Linda, "While I agree that those who engage in risky behavior should be responsible for the consequences,too often the victims of such behavior are innocent children. What do we do then? Society does pay a price for such behavior."
That is exactly my point Linda. Rather than making 'society' pay the price, we ought to be moving in a direction which requires individuals to be responsible for their actions (sadly we seem to be going the opposite direction). The intent of blaming society is to make everyone responsible but has the effect of making no one responsible, especially the person(s) who should be held responsible.
On your second point: "Also, I have watched the change in the culture ever since these so-called "sexual freedoms" have been celebrated. It is now at a point where I have to monitor everything my child sees or hears because of all the garbage out there, I cannot let him go to the park without supervision, and even the library has become a source for concern. And personally I cannot comfortably walk down the street at night anymore. What kind of freedom is that?"
The fact is that you do have to 'monitor everything' your child does; that is what you signed up for when you decided to be a parent. Don't buy into this Hillary Clinton 'It takes a village' nonsense. It takes a parent. Speaking as a parent myself, I understand this. My children are not the responsibility of 'the village' but mine alone. If I am negligent while raising my children, then I should be held accountable; not Hollywood, not the music industry, not pop culture. I do not wish to change these things. Before we decide we want to restrict other's freedoms, we should take a good look in the mirror first.
**UPDATE: Linda Responds***
Full text of her response:
Gary: Thanks.
Stephen: Sometimes the result of "sexual freedom" (or is it bondage?), are innocent children who are either aborted, abused or neglected. Women who are treated like objects. Young girls who think they have to sleep with a guy to keep him interested. And look at the number of young women - single mothers - in poverty as a result. Believe me, it has not always been this way. And one way or another, there is a price to pay.
So who is responsible? The individuals involved? The pornographers? The ALA which thinks no knowledge is bad for children? Our public school system which thinks teenagers can be equated with animals in heat and are not able to rise above their hormones? Or a public which is afraid to stand against this and thus allows it to continue in the name of individual freedoms.
And I do understand that it is my responsiblity to parent my child. But let me whine about it just a little. When I was growing up our popular culture had a sense of decency, so my parents never had to worry too much about it. The culture supported their values. Now, as a parent I feel at war with the culture (the village) so it makes it difficult at best. I can't follow him everywhere - I can only teach him values and hope that when he is confronted with a culture that tells him differently, he will want to do what is right.
As for anything Hillary might have to sell, I'm not buying.
Posted by: Linda April 26, 2005 08:15 PM
Linda, "While I agree that those who engage in risky behavior should be responsible for the consequences,too often the victims of such behavior are innocent children. What do we do then? Society does pay a price for such behavior."
That is exactly my point Linda. Rather than making 'society' pay the price, we ought to be moving in a direction which requires individuals to be responsible for their actions (sadly we seem to be going the opposite direction). The intent of blaming society is to make everyone responsible but has the effect of making no one responsible, especially the person(s) who should be held responsible.
On your second point: "Also, I have watched the change in the culture ever since these so-called "sexual freedoms" have been celebrated. It is now at a point where I have to monitor everything my child sees or hears because of all the garbage out there, I cannot let him go to the park without supervision, and even the library has become a source for concern. And personally I cannot comfortably walk down the street at night anymore. What kind of freedom is that?"
The fact is that you do have to 'monitor everything' your child does; that is what you signed up for when you decided to be a parent. Don't buy into this Hillary Clinton 'It takes a village' nonsense. It takes a parent. Speaking as a parent myself, I understand this. My children are not the responsibility of 'the village' but mine alone. If I am negligent while raising my children, then I should be held accountable; not Hollywood, not the music industry, not pop culture. I do not wish to change these things. Before we decide we want to restrict other's freedoms, we should take a good look in the mirror first.
**UPDATE: Linda Responds***
Full text of her response:
Gary: Thanks.
Stephen: Sometimes the result of "sexual freedom" (or is it bondage?), are innocent children who are either aborted, abused or neglected. Women who are treated like objects. Young girls who think they have to sleep with a guy to keep him interested. And look at the number of young women - single mothers - in poverty as a result. Believe me, it has not always been this way. And one way or another, there is a price to pay.
So who is responsible? The individuals involved? The pornographers? The ALA which thinks no knowledge is bad for children? Our public school system which thinks teenagers can be equated with animals in heat and are not able to rise above their hormones? Or a public which is afraid to stand against this and thus allows it to continue in the name of individual freedoms.
And I do understand that it is my responsiblity to parent my child. But let me whine about it just a little. When I was growing up our popular culture had a sense of decency, so my parents never had to worry too much about it. The culture supported their values. Now, as a parent I feel at war with the culture (the village) so it makes it difficult at best. I can't follow him everywhere - I can only teach him values and hope that when he is confronted with a culture that tells him differently, he will want to do what is right.
As for anything Hillary might have to sell, I'm not buying.
Posted by: Linda April 26, 2005 08:15 PM
posted by Stephen Littau at 12:37 PM
14 Comments:
While I agree that people must be responsible for their action, it also is my feeling that a good society is built on the idea that well will also help each other. There are times when individuals and local organizations can not or do not handle this need. In these cases it is the government that must help the poor, unfortunate and weak in our society or we become a society of animals all caring only for ourself.
I agree to a point, Chipman. Parents must take the responsibility for raising their children, but there comes a time when "the village" (meaning teachers, friends, church, family) must help too. Teenagers are particularly unwilling to listen to parents but often will listen to an outsider. That's where "the village" can help.
I also disagree that government must help the poor. Usually government does more damage than good -- it should get out of the way and let communities do that job.
Linda:
When I refer to sexual freedom, I am meaning consenting adults – not those who find themselves in such a relationship that is against his/her will (Such as in the case my wife wrote about in her Polygamy post). You seem to continue to deny the responsibility of those who willingly engage in destructive behavior and want to blame the results of the behavior on the porn industry and pop culture. In your example: “Young girls who think they have to sleep with a guy to keep him interested.” The fact remains: the young girl made a choice.
You asked the all-important question: “Who is responsible?” Maybe I should ask you, who do you think should be responsible? The individuals involved? Yes. The pornographers? How? Everyone who participates in the porn industry is (should) also be responsible for their own actions from the producer, director, the ‘actors,’ and the end customer who buys the video. If Peter Pervert buys a XXX video which angers his wife and results in a divorce, should ‘the pornographers’ be held liable? How do you figure ‘the public’ should respond; pass more laws? Maybe we should go back to the days of scarlet letters for all sexual deviants as defined by ‘the public’ or ‘the village.’
I sympathize with you on how difficult it is to raise children in this environment. I can’t even watch TV with my young children without a Viagra commercial coming on at some point. My six and seven year-old boys are now singing the jingle for the genital herpes drug ("It’s a brand new day"). What should I do about it? Boycott all of the shows that run these commercials? I prefer to raise them the way I see fit and tackle these issues as they arise, by parenting. Nobody ever said it was supposed to be easy. You know that PSA: Parents: the anit-drug? I think that is a message we should listen to, parents do make a difference – even more than you think.
I’ll admit to being odd by comparison. I’m a Christian-libertarian-single parent (of three minor kids). I agree completely with Stephen on this. Although it hasn’t been articulated as such, I hear a hint of the often lamented phrase: “the coarsening of the culture”. What is meant by this, I think, is that secular people tend to have the audacity to act in a secular fashion. This is not unlike moralists acting on their moral values.
Both parties would do well to ask themselves the following question: would I allow one, that doesn’t share my values, to dictate my lifestyle choices? The honest answer is absolutely not. Since both subsets (generally speaking) find the other’s world-view repugnant, I’m more than happy to praise the genius of the First Amendment, which guarantees that neither can abrogate the liberty of the other…nor can the Government. Everyone ought to realize that cultural concerns are subjective in nature and objective harm can be addressed by the neutral arbiter: the Courts.
Wow, who knew personal responsibility would be such a controversial topic? Each of you have brought up some interesting arguments; I am enjoying this debate very much. You have brought up so many items I’m not sure I’ll be able to address them all but I’ll try to hit on the most important points.
Chipman said...
"While I agree that people must be responsible for their action, it also is my feeling that a good society is built on the idea that well will also help each other. There are times when individuals and local organizations can not or do not handle this need. In these cases it is the government that must help the poor, unfortunate and weak in our society or we become a society of animals all caring only for ourself."
One point I may have neglected in my earlier statements: yes, there are times when an individual will need help from others even when the individual has acted irresponsibly. Part of being responsible is acknowledging you have made a mistake and trying to make it right. That first step should be taken before asking others for help. Who’s help should be solicited? Ideally friends, family, a local charity or church – all of these entities of which also have a choice as to whether to help or not. When government does the job, this choice is denied to the taxpayers who are helping via government programs. The government goes beyond its constitutional limits when this happens. A good society does help those in need with or without the government’s help. I reject this notion that if government does not help people in need, fellow citizens will not fill that void. I’ve seen it happen several times over in my own life experience– regular people helping others financially, emotionally, and otherwise. For all the bad people in our society, there are still plenty who want to do good. Read my January 11th post ‘Generosity With Other People’s Money’ for a more complete explanation.
In an attempt to answer some of Linda and Gary’s points, yes it is true that innocent people get hurt by bad decisions by others. If the offending person fails to act responsible for doing this harm, then others have to hold this person accountable through whatever means warrant the offense (i.e. the courts, arbitration, confrontation, etc.).
Making laws against those who ‘might’ be irresponsible is usually not the best way to go. When we start basing legislation on ‘it’s for the children,’ we need to be extra cautious. That reasoning is behind many bad laws we have now and proposed laws going through congress. There are instances when laws do need to be enacted to protect children, but this reasoning should never be used if it violates our basic constitutional rights. We should all defend the rights of even those who we disagree with whether it is Larry Flynt, Jerry Farwell or anyone else.
It is much better to make persuasive, logical arguments against those things in society you find repugnant. This is something we can all do without violating anyone’s individual rights. Unlike many on the Left who scream about rights but want the government to step in when we make mistakes, I understand that we cannot expect to be independent and act like children at the same time. We cannot demand rights if we are unwilling to be personally responsible for the consequences of our own actions.
Gary, what I tried to point out was that, for those that don’t share your morality, your world-view may seem detrimental to societal health. Since you likely reject such a notion, try to consider the possibility that they think similarly, but in reverse. It seems to me that everyone ought to be afforded basic individual liberty, so long as direct harm is not caused. The harm you describe is nebulous and not empirically demonstrable, because if it were, the courts would provide relief.
I would urge you to read my most recent post, in which I attempt to elucidate the proper role of government.
Gary - Thank you for stating it much better that I ever could.
Robert: I am somewhat amused at your statement "the courts would provide relief". While the ACLU combs the country to find anyone offended by all things pertaining to God, and the courts accomodate them to give relief to all those offended by "God" thereby stripping us of our heritage, your argument does not work with me.
Take a good look at Roe vs. Wade and tell me the courts are the answer to everything.
The "secularists" are fighting to have their way at every turn. In your world, they win.
I am reminded of the quote "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing".
Linda, with all respect, you demand from secularists that which you refuse give in return…namely: the freedom to hold an opposing point of view.
It simply does not follow that their voice must be silenced, while yours must be trumpeted. Can you not recognize the obvious hypocrisy? Attempts to selectively stifle political discourse can only endanger your own liberty (the same is true for the other side). Try to consider a society wherein those of your ilk are/were in the minority…China and the former USSR spring to mind. The logical end of your argument is: tyranny of the majority.
Gary:
If you and Linda are saying your arguments are solely moral arguments rather than making the laws more restrictive to fit your moral views, I will take you at your word. Don’t you agree that there are those on the Christian Right that do want their beliefs codified into our laws?
A great example of this occurred this past weekend on ‘Justice Sunday’ (should have been called ‘Theocracy Sunday’). What The Christian Right is saying is that if you don’t like judges who want to make their Christian beliefs into law, you are Christian bashing, discriminating against people of faith, or simply hate Christians. This is an unfair argument.
The prototype judges The Christian Right want are those with a judicial philosophy of Robert Bork and Roy Moore. I do not know much about the President’s current nominees. I don’t know if the Democrats are simply playing politics (which is possible) or legitimately concerned that some of the judges rule on the basis of the Bible rather than the constitution and the Rule of Law. The fact that The Christian Right loves these choices is enough to give me some pause.
I want to know more; I’ll do my homework and post whatever I find when I do. Judges have too much influence on our laws for too long of a period for this to be subject to a simple majority.
Gary, on the need for civil dialogue, we agree. What I fear though, is the (seemingly) growing desire of moralists to lobby their representatives in Congress to codify their narrow beliefs. It sounds like you and Linda (and myself) fear that the Courts (9th circuit) are acting on behalf of secularists, to purge the public square of any/all religious symbolism.
The fact is that both camps are stealthily and incrementally attempting to shape the broader culture to conform to their own ideal. As I said, the First Amendment was ratified to impartially arbitrate between the two. When I mention the courts, I’m presupposing that they will fulfill their Constitutional mandate. Judicial activism, in either direction, ought to be condemned.
I would only caution that, while one rightly criticizes the inappropriate behavior of a political opponent, one should also examine one’s allies…it’s the beam v. the speck in the eye axiom. Also persuasion is one thing, but state coercion is quite another.
Gary: Thank you. You may speak for me anytime because you nailed it.
Stephen Said:
"A great example of this occurred this past weekend on ‘Justice Sunday’ (should have been called ‘Theocracy Sunday’). What The Christian Right is saying is that if you don’t like judges who want to make their Christian beliefs into law, you are Christian bashing, discriminating against people of faith, or simply hate Christians. This is an unfair argument."
Stephen:
Please tell me where they have said this. My understanding is that members of the judiciary committee have stated concern for nominees because of their "deeply held beliefs" (translate - they may oppose abortion on demand). Why are you so concerned when these Christian get together to exercise their free speech against a strategy that is denying nominees a vote on the Senate floor. Why are you not concerned about the fact that certain members of the judiciary committee hold meetings and invite special interest groups to participate (Naral being one). Or haven't you heard about the "secret" memos which the mainstream press has chosen to ignore.
Robert said:
"What I fear though, is the (seemingly) growing desire of moralists to lobby their representatives in Congress to codify their narrow beliefs."
Robert: What laws are you talking about?
It seems you have bought into the secularist view of the so-called "religious right". You seem to feel threatened by them. I am interested in what precious freedoms you think you will lose if the religious people have a say in government.
Yes, those pesky Christians. They were instrumental in eliminating slavery - whatever will they do next?
I wonder how Abraham Lincoln would fare with you.
Gary,
I agree with you for the most part. There are extremists in every camp, no question about it.
Also, after debating you on several occasions and reading your blog, the way you approach issues I don't consider you as the fringe of the religous right. I see you as a very independant thinker. We may not always agree but I respect the way you use logic to reach your conclusions.
As far as theocracy goes, it is rarley a the type of government which is fair and just. That's not to say that there haven't been secular governments which didn't honor individual freedoms. Like I said, there are extremes in every philosophy and no philosophy is perfect to be sure.
February 5, 2006 - this blog post and some of the ensuing conversation have been referred to in my post Tension, which addresses (among other things) the GoDaddy commercial, the Danish cartoons, and the religion of Secularism.
2015-12-19keyun
tory burch outlet
michael kors outlet sale
adidas originals store
sunglasses oakley
uggs for sale
michael kors outlet
uggs outlet
coach factory outlet
louis vuitton outlet stores
prada handbags
tory burch
abercrombie fitch
toms outlet
louis vuitton outlet
michael kors handbags
ed hardy outlet
michael kors outlet clearance
coach clearance
nike air max
coach outlet online
prada
concord 11
louis vuitton handbags
michael kors outlet online
tiffany jewelry
louboutin femme
uggs for sale
ugg outlet
michael kors handbags
louis vuitton outlet
beats by dre
louis vuitton
lebron 12
ugg boots sale
toms
hollister
louis vuitton handbags
Post a Comment
<< Home