Reply personal responsibility is a crock: here is why

Post Reply New Topic

which is why the absolutist position on personal responsibility is a crock!

And, I think I need to change the title of the thread a bit because I can see how it is poorly worded.

So then what you’re Really saying is that unfettered capitalism is stupid & some degree of socialism like we have here in Canada where we look after citizens with social safety nets like socialized medicine is a better system.

THAT I can agree with. But to suggest that personal responsibility is a crock, well, that is a crock & we just established why above.

yes, that is precisely what I'm saying. I think the problem is in my wording and my word choice when I ask questions and convey my points. And, that's a pragmatic disorder for me. That is a core feature of my version of autism you could say. I need to prefix my words and say when I mean all or only partial or some or to certain extents.

We desperately need things done in the USA about covid-19 on the federal level.

We need ONE policy----not 51 policies!

Therein lies the problem---the US didn't have a coherent federal policy.

I was referring to child abuse and neglect and kids growing up without unconditional love and being emotionally neglected. This f***s the child up when their needs are not met even if they are fed and clothed and not beaten and starved.

You can ask a mod to edit your title for you.

There ya go! Good chat. We finally got to the bottom of what you intended to say.

Maybe, maybe not.

Canada Does have science based consistent messaging about covid But no singular federal policy. It’s all been left to each Province to deal with. And the people in each Province are different, too. That’s why we’ve done so well in B.C. whereas lots of people have died in Quebec & Ontario and the hospitals are filling up in Alberta.

But at least we have sane Federal messaging that certainly hasn’t harmed us like trump did & then boot licking governors latched onto to make sure covid spread as much as possible in their states.

And why do we care what they think? If someone...and I don’t see autism as necessarily a disability, I see it as, idk, differently-abled...physically, mentally, intellectually, CAN NOT work, then they CAN NOT work and they don’t owe me or any other conservative, libertarian, or objectivist any justification whatsoever.

Now having said that, they are not entitled to anything more than having their basic needs met. If YOU want to send disabled people to Disney World, that’s YOUR prerogative, YOUR responsibility. There is nothing wrong with that. But individuals do not OWE disabled people any special care. They have the choice to be generous, and they quite often are generous.

To blame someone for what they cannot help and do not cause is stupid. But to allow your self-esteem to suffer because someone else is stupid? I don’t care who you are, that’s pathetic. The real tragedy is believing the words of others actually matter. Sometimes those words do matter. But words of hate belong in the metaphorical dustbin of irrelevance. The most logical AND joyous experience is one spent in the presence of positivity, banishing the darkness of negativity, hate, and envy.

How’s life in the демократическая народная республика канада (DNRK) these days?

There’s already a system that will get the results you’re looking for: Free Market Capitalism. All we need are enough people who want it and will work for it. It’s the one thing nobody has actually tried yet.

My job? Which one? I teach music and band, am staff accompanist (pianist ) at my church, and take any freelance work I can get. On the side I write music, some of which you’ve heard, but that hasn’t really gone anywhere...yet! I recently changed jobs and am in the process of finding a more suitable church gig as my current one is three hours away. I own two houses, which helps, but desperately need to sell my Delta property. Once I’m able to quit my other job, I won’t need the other house. If I can’t sell it, I may convert it to a rental. In the past I’ve done other things. I’ve been an engineer at a radio station, worked the grill at McDonald’s, tech support for a university MIDI lab, and I even found work as a paralegal and process server. Oh...and I was even on a reality TV show once. And I did musical direction for a community theater production of Carousel. I’m open to pretty much anything, but music is what I’m best at.

Remember Occupy Wall Street? What do you think?

These guys had a sweet deal offered to them on a silver platter.

https://www.latimes.com/local/la-xpm-20 ... story.html

They turned it down which was so stupid. They could've done great things with what they were offered. The revolution became the goal itself instead of a mere tool to achieve one's goals. No revolution is needed if one can achieve the same things through other means. If we can use capitalism to achieve the things we want I would do so.

Here is my answer! Because they have a lot of clout and they have major influence in what services and help we will get in social society.

Aaaah! In “social” society. Therein lies the problem. With socialist programs, it always comes down to who is paying for services.

In the book 48 Laws Of Power, one of the laws is “Beware the free lunch.” When people give you something that appears otherwise free, they usually expect something in return. Nothing is ever truly free. But that creates another problem, too: When someone does a thing of their own free will and it is beyond our power or will to stop them, we know good and well we owe them NOTHING. When you do something FOR someone, they instantly know you either have power over them or you want power. They will either work to repay their debt if they can, or they will resent you for being nice. It’s not necessarily a rational view, it’s just how people are.

I combat this by examining my life and finding ways that people really do owe me “free” stuff. Did I do something right, or do people just love me that much? If so, I respond with gratitude. If they are malicious, I just laugh because the joke’s on them.

When you are DEPENDENT on the kindness of others, you forfeit the right to choose. I don’t approve of abortion in most instances, therefore I resent knowing that I have to pay taxes that support it. I’d rather not support it at all. Make abortion a strictly life-saving procedure and then it’s up to the doctors and the insurance companies. In a capitalist society, you can support whatever charities match your interests and moral values. So if I maintain a certain worldview and support a charity that believes in same, I expect certain behavior from those receiving those benefits. I expect them to have reasonable sustenance, not steak and seafood every week. Heck, I haven’t eaten steak in over a year now. I’m certainly not going to be in favor of people who depend on me and don’t work, regardless of circumstances, to enjoy a better quality of life than I do. My own children don’t even get nicer things than I do. I can’t afford alcohol, which is why I don’t drink. You think I’m going to be ok with the crazy bum on the street buying hard liquor with what little money I’m practically killing myself to earn when I can’t even buy a pint of Jack Daniel’s or Revanche for myself? And if these people are destroying themselves with addictive drugs like crack and heroin, that is not my problem. I don’t support self-destruction, I didn’t choose to make them addicted to things, and I’m not going to pay for something they did to themselves.

But when people who ARE dependent receive aid out of the generosity of those who have enough that they can give, they should respond in gratitude and reflect that gratitude in their behavior by living up to the expectations of those who love them. What you don’t do is bemoan how you can’t do things because you are physically and intellectually unable. If you have a “free ride,” be grateful people are able and willing to give it to you. You certainly don’t complain about people who do things for you because of their ability to give.

Even in a socialist society, beware the free lunch still applies. If the state is feeding you and feeding you well, the state still expects you to support their ideology. An objectivist never gives anything away for free. If you receive money from an objectivist, no thanks is ever required. You earned it. It’s yours. If you are disabled and cannot work, then it just means they love you. An objectivist isn’t going to say what you can/can’t do because you are your own person. You’ve already done what was expected of you just by being kind, loving, gracious. If you choose to buy addictive drugs and alcohol, they may withdraw support because they don’t like the idea of hastening your death, but they aren’t going to make a point of saying what you can or can’t do. They will see a self-loving attitude and kind spirit as worthy. If I am dependent, then living a moral life is the least I can do for those who support me—not because I am obligated to them, but because I want to return something of worth to those who wish to deal with me in kindness. Socialism obligates. Sharing is immoral because it is an obligation between those who take and those who are taken from. True, heartfelt generosity is only possible under objectivism, and ethical capitalism is the vehicle by which honest trade is facilitated.

I don't just mean help or aid from the government. I mean help or aid from the average joe. Like taking time to help me and guide me through job searches or practice interviewing with me. Or, doing what you are doing now and answering some of my questions and try to guide me through things that make no sense to me.

Basically, the conservative person instead of trying to spend his time in politics trying to get rid of social programs take time with people who are on them and help them to get employed.

Here is an example of a personality test question of differing questions. Do I believe life is not fair? I didn't understand the question at all and what it was asking. 1. Why does my beliefs, feelings and emotions matter if there is an objective reality outside of myself. 2. What is fair and fairness? Are we doing a statistical analysis because the word can mean average? 3. Or do we mean just? But the concept of justice is open to interpretation because it seems like one group can define fairness differently then others. If we mean average what are our statistical points exactly?

Conservatives see taxing people who have money to give to the poor as theft while liberals don't? So, what is justice and fairness exactly? How was I to give a logical answer?

This is another reason I had difficulty with getting employment in the USA. Conservatives don't want people to be on welfare then are they willing to sit down with the person and help them with questions such as this?

"conservatives" limit themselves to spouting platitudes such as "sink or swim" or "we are a nation of plenty," all the while "trickling down" engineered scarcity to those under them, not only deigning the working man unworthy of swimming lessons but indeed making the people drown all the while laughing amongst themselves about what great fun it is.