Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Norondor]

Yeah! Responsibility! Take responsibility, America! Take responsibility for your health care, and your road maintenance, and your power grids!

[Royal☭]

Responsibility! That's the key! I'm responsible for my boss paying me shit, unlivable wages! I'm responsible that because of these wages I have to choose between either food, school, or rent!

I'm responsible because the only way to get a better life is to take on massive loans that will leave me an indentured servant for the rest of the life, and that's only [if]if[/i] I find a job.

You know what? Fuck responsibility. Anyone who tells you that people have to be "responsible" is an asshat, and probably just wants more shit for himself. In fact, with Newt Gingrich, I know that's true.

[Thad]

In fairness, Gingrich WAS eventually held responsible for his own job performance.

Course, it hasn't stopped him from getting other high-paying jobs since.

[Brentai]

Well when Newt Gingrich says it it's fair to assume that "responsibility" means "shut up and take a pay cut".

A more encompassing and balanced definition of "responsibility" would be "work hard, don't let injustices slide, make sure you treat those less fortunate than you with respect, make sure you treat those more fortunate than you with equal respect, give fair wages to your employees, act with civility in all matters, and recognize what you do and do not owe to this society."

[Thad]

A bit wordy for a sign, but a damn good set of principles.

[Brentai]

Well, it's a bit cliche, but Luke 6:31 serves pretty well as an encapsulation.

[Thad]

Also the only thing in the Bible I can actually cite by chapter and verse.  I like to think that says something positive about me, but Lord knows plenty of people think I'm a dick, so.

[Royal☭]

Am I wrong in thinking that it's totally cool for the government to make somebody do those things, though? Like, libertards often complain that taxes are the government forcing money away from you at gunpoint, but really, if the only way to get people healthcare and food is to do that then lock and load.

[Mongrel]

It might not be all bad.

Sure, responsibility could be used as a screen for GOP cuts and abuse at first, but if the term gets flogged around enough, it will remind the peasantry that they can't depend on politicians to come along and save them. Then maybe the top ten annual google searches would be for something useful instead of shitty TV show personalities (a small thing, but baby steps - you know?).

Because at the end of the day, even when you complain about all the money in the political process, this is not a failure wrought by imposed leaders. It's a failure of people not collectively demanding better. Which is why I always predict that things need to get much worse before they will improve; people need to viscerally re-learn what happens when they collectively abdicate their responsibilities as citizens.

[Brentai]

Not at all, in my opinion.  That's what I believe the government is FOR - making sure that everyone plays by the same social agreement.  The fact that our government, today, is doing a spectacularly bad job of it and getting worse every day doesn't mean that there's something wrong with the idea.

[Thad]

Sure, responsibility could be used as a screen for GOP cuts and abuse at first, but if the term gets flogged around enough, it will remind the peasantry that they can't depend on politicians to come along and save them.

Meh.  "Personal responsibility" has been the Republican catchphrase at least as far back as Goldwater.  Course, I don't think he applied it quite as selectively as the current GOP does.

Not at all, in my opinion.  That's what I believe the government is FOR - making sure that everyone plays by the same social agreement.  The fact that our government, today, is doing a spectacularly bad job of it and getting worse every day doesn't mean that there's something wrong with the idea.

The old joke about Republicans believing that the government is useless and then setting out to prove it.

Again, if you press most people they'll acknowledge that Social Security and, say, bans on child labor are good things.

[Mongrel]

If you have a totally disengaged population, it greatly impedes the ability of the government to get anything done.

That's the real genius behind democratic forms of government. It's not that noise about "freedom" or whatever, it's the promise of a real stake (however small) in the nation. That stake gives people a real reason to participate, to buy in to the whole thing. Any practical discussion of "Responsibility" is really dealing with that engagement issue.

Throughout most of human history, most large government has oscillated between coercion and benign neglect. Things like tax evasion or other forms of avoidance were generally far more accepted and approved of.

But the nations with the best outcomes were usually the ones that best maximized the engagement of their citizens. The more engaged people are, the less waste you have and the better you'll do with the resources and circumstances available. That's a big part of why the British beat the French in the long run in Europe. The French had great demographics (way better land and a lot more of it, way more money, and a significantly higher population) but it was the English with the more engaged population. The only time the French really properly used all their resources was the one period of time the French population was really collectively on board with the government.

That's where national health insurance and welfare and such come in. You're maximizing the utility of your population. On a psychological level people feel like they're being protected and supported and on a practical level you're maximizing the health and well-being of your population. Enlightened self-interest and all that. The future challenge I think will be for a nation to affordably find ways of engaging people who are more and more marginal, such as people with serious mental or health issues. 

Anyway, rambling diatribes aside, the point being that Democracies tilt people towards engagement with the government, but that this is not something that ONLY occurs in democracies and is not necessarily an inherent property of any particular government type.

I'm not really arguing your philosophical idea of what government is theoretically for (I probably agree that part of the government's function is exactly what you describe - arbiter of the social agreement), more the practical outcomes. And a good practical outcome does require good leaders, but it also requires good people. It's a positive feedback loop.

[Mongrel]

By "responsibility" I don't mean "pull yourself up by your bootstraps".

[Thad]

Businessweek: If Newt Gingrich is the Answer, Tea Party has Failed.

And as much as I relish the phrase "the Tea Party has failed", it is not a good thing in this case, because Gingrich in fact represents everything that's bad about the Tea Party -- its crazy politics and general nastiness -- and nothing that's good about it -- its grassroots support and disdain for Washington politics.

Not that it matters; he's not gonna be the nominee, and if he is he'll get clobbered.

[Mongrel]

Is disdain for Washington politics really a good thing though?

Ultimately, the "Everything about Washington is bad!" meme-spouting crowd are vastly exaggerating how bad things are as a selling point to put themselves into power.

That's not a solution to government gridlock or a broken political process. That's a recipe for making things worse.

It's a pretty old tactic, really. It's just that you see it way more in collapsing or abortive democracies.

Oh.

[Royal☭]

Dude, "Washington is full of corrupt politicians and liars" has been the campaign go-to sense the country was founded.

[Mongrel]

See my edit.

[Royal☭]

Oddly enough my point still stands.

[Mongrel]

Sure, the "The current elites are terrible! Elect me as your champion/saviour/whatever!" date back at least to Marius, if not back thousands of years earlier. It's basically THE textbook approach to getting elected as a dictator with power to destroy whatever existing social contract is in place.

But would you concede that - with regards to the US - the narrative has gotten much worse in recent years? (subjective arguments about "Our era is worse than any prior era! Also kids are terrible!" aside).

[Brentai]

Looks like Perry's trying to recover by pandering to the conservative portion of OWS.  On the one hand, he's clearly being a gutless, backstabbing little shit who doesn't deserve to lead a bake sale; on the other hand, I would absolutely LOVE to see him pull a nomination out of his ass this way.  If pandering to the American people turns out to be so much more effective than pandering to corporations that RICK FUCKING WHATSTHETHIRDONE gets the nomination for President of the United States, it might cause a lot of other politicians (including our favorite noogie) to follow suit for the 2012 race.  Also, a fucking leprechaun might leap out of my asshole and grant me the gift of flight.