responsiblity is a subjective phenomenon? can you please tell me who is responsible for your post then? or is it actually yours? did you come up with its content and did you write it or your dog did it? if I steal your money and no one coerced me in doing so and I say that am not responsible for what happened, you are supposed to let me go, because responsibility is subjective, right? I can just say that a mosquito flied into your room and took away your wallet and you should blame it.
I think there are two senses in which “responsibility” can be used. One refers to causality – i.e., who did X? The other refers to ethics/morality – who should be stopped/prevented from doing X, or against whom should action be taken as a result of X?
responsibility has got to do with ethics. and it means that if person A does X which results in Y, the person owns the created by X effect which caused Y. which would simply mean that if I steal your money I am the one who did act in a manner that resulted in you being without money. I am responsible for what happened and not a random guy walking on the street. if I drive a car and hit a deer I am responsible for hitting the deer, but what caused the deer being hit is an object in motion(the car) that collided with the animal’s body. and I am the one who controlled that object.
YOu can try to define responsiblity all you want. ANd that works for you. But some people feel God is responsible for our posts. That may sound ridiculous to you, or it may not. But it is fully believed by others. Sometimes people don’t feel responsible for murder, or many other crimes when they are.
Epicurus ibn Kalhoun, I posted some follow-up questions about your idea of “community”. Did you see them?
You’re just saying that you’d help someone out if you thought they deserved it, and if you thought you could spare the resources. You’re saying it in a nice way, but it’s what you mean. Of course those are decisions which should be yours to make.
That’s actually not the same as endorsing absolute entitlement. I don’t want to be presumptuous, but I do wonder what would happen if there were two hypothetical disabled people, one of whom was a close relative/loved one/friend of yours, and another who is a stranger or whom you even despised for your own good reasons. You do not have the resources to help both to a degree you consider to be adequate. I’m sure you would like to be able to make the decision to help the person you like in place of the person you do not know or do not like.
Thinking about scarcity is not pleasant, obviously, but it’s necessary. The welfare state is tolerated because of shortage anxiety, but it actually does not lead to less scarcity.
I’m not sure I appreciate the necessarily territorial aspect…
Are you describing a charity, an insurance company, or something else? Charities accept whatever donations they can get, and they provide services to suitable candidates within their mandate, the idea being to help those who can’t help themselves. Insurance companies reduce costs by calculating and diluting risk amongst a large pool of customers, but they only provide services to members who are paid-up, and your premiums vary depending on how risky they think you are. You can’t sign up at all with pre-existing conditions. In neither case does it seem rational, economically speaking, to arbitrarily restrict the organisation’s activities to a particular geographic area…
If someone had a pre-existing condition, does the community refuse them entrance like an insurance company would? If they don’t, then these places will be creating poverty and dependency. If they do, then they might as well be an insurance company, which is always better off the more custmers its got, and probably wouldn’t arbitrarily restrict its services to a particular “community”. An insurance company which didn’t could be cheaper, as would housing which didn’t include such things as fringe benefits.
Fair enough. So you wouldn’t consider yourself causally responsible for it, then. You agree that failure or refusal to stop a mugging isn’t as wrong as causing a mugging in the first place.
No. But that doesn’t mean I would feel any better about it.
Are these communities voluntary? How are they formed? And where does the supposition of giving for welfare come from, exactly?
They can be. Many ways. From the community itself.
To your first question; time and circumstance. I do not want to make that decision beforehand, as I cannot predict the circumstance.
I’m not sure I appreciate the necessarily territorial aspect…
You’re right, it doesn’t have to be territorial, as in the Christian community, or the scientific community.
If someone had a pre-existing condition, does the community refuse them entrance like an insurance company would? If they don’t, then these places will be creating poverty and dependency. If they do, then they might as well be an insurance company, which is always better off the more custmers its got, and probably wouldn’t arbitrarily restrict its services to a particular “community”. An insurance company which didn’t could be cheaper, as would housing which didn’t include such things as fringe benefits.
If it were an insurance company, it would be seeking a profit. That means it is trying to not pay out at every opportunity. I’m not a big fan of that when it concerns people’s lives.
If it were a charity it would only ask for donations from whoever it can. Charities are great, but insufficient.
A community orginization program would have it written into the law that to be a member of community x you owe y to the community at large. This is how societies operate now. The only difference is, under anarchism, you would get to choose whether to be a member of the community or not.
Most people are pretty charitable when allowed to keep their money. And many would be happy to donate to charity to help the the truly needy.
What reason is there that private charitable funds wouldn’t be able to offer the same kind of consistency as government? Private charitable organizations could have a buffer for bad times or simply be insured against a sudden decline in contributions due to a recession, for example. The needy can be assured that the money will come each month.
That’s fine. I wasn’t saying you should feel any better about it. I’d feel bad about it too.
Should I take this to mean that you consider involuntary communities to be morally/ethically legitimate?
Which ways would you consider to be legitimate for forming communities? An exhaustive list would be appreciated here.
Do you mean the supposition of giving for welfare would be part of the basis for forming the community?
Aren’t phrases like “the Christian community” and “the scientific community” used somewhat metaphorically? They don’t seem to have been intentional communities.
Do you consider performing due diligence the same thing as trying to not pay out at every opportunity? Why or why not?
I’m sorry but “concerns people’s lives” seems weasely to me. Can you please clarify this phrase?
How do you know whether they’re insufficient?
What if a lot of people either leave or simply don’t join such communities? Also there’s the issue of private land ownership vis-a-vis joining/leaving communities – does a territorial community necessarily trump private land ownership?
Aren’t phrases like “the Christian community” and “the scientific community” used somewhat metaphorically? They don’t seem to have been intentional communities.
They are arbitrary, for sure.. if not metaphorical. So is the family, or the business, both of which are just other communities.
Do you consider performing due diligence the same thing as trying to not pay out at every opportunity? Why or why not?
No, because it is self evident that A cannot equal B. But any businessman knows a business fails if it doesn’t profit. “Due dilligence” to a capitalist is a means to an end.
I’m sorry but “concerns people’s lives” seems weasely to me. Can you please clarify this phrase?
I don’t think people should die because someone wanted a bigger christmas bonus.
How do you know whether they’re insufficient?
The history of charities tells me so.
What if a lot of people either leave or simply don’t join such communities? Also there’s the issue of private land ownership vis-a-vis joining/leaving communities – does a territorial community necessarily trump private land ownership?
Yes, if one is practicing slavery, I find others justified in using coercion against him.
So my question remains: which “communities” do you see as legitimate?
Of course due dilligence is a means to an end, if not also an end in itself. So what? I don’t see the problem.
By the way, we all seek to profit in our lives.
This doesn’t clarify much for me, I’m afraid. Your example seems just as weasely as the original phrase. Can you please try again?
Perhaps you can explain what you take the history of charities to be, because my understanding of it tells me otherwise.
How is owning private property equivalent to practicing slavery? Otherwise, this just looks like more weasel words to me.
So my question remains: which “communities” do you see as legitimate?
What do you mean by legitimate? Any community one subjects themselves to thereby gains its legitimacy, at least amongst its willfull population.
Of course due dilligence is a means to an end, if not also an end in itself. So what? I don’t see the problem.
I am saying due dilligence is only wanted by the capitalist insofar as it increases profits. If they can get away w less dilligence they will. I am also saying that what modern healthcare companies do is not due dilligence, it is merely kicking out those they might have to pay.
By the way, we all seek to profit in our lives.
Yes, and we all poop. But I certainly shouldn’t poop in your cereal bowl because it is closer (more cost efficient) than going to the toilet. It’s a matter of degree.
This doesn’t clarify much for me, I’m afraid. Your example seems just as weasely as the original phrase. Can you please try again?
I find people profiting off the death and/or mizery of others deplorable, and disgusting.
Perhaps you can explain what you take the history of charities to be, because my understanding of it tells me otherwise.
I was not aware charities had come anywhere near close to eliminating poverty and/or lack of healthcare. Like I said, charities are good. But they are not far reaching enough, nor are their funding methods sufficient.
How is owning private property equivalent to practicing slavery? Otherwise, this just looks like more weasel words to me.
Because, in historical context, a slave was one’s property. If I agree with one coercing a slave owner, how can I say I am not opposed to coercing property owners? I don’t categorically support communities rights over the individual, that would be absurd. I handily support individual rights. But I think there are situations where the rights of the community supersede the rights of an individual. A blatantly obvious example would be rapists, or slave traders.
By “legitimate” I mean “morally permissible”. Elsewhere you seem to have indicated moral support for involuntary communities. I personally have no moral problem with communities, as long as they’re voluntary.
It’s interesting that you apparently consider “capitalists” to be entirely amoral, if not immoral, with the converse applying to “non-capitalists”. Why is that? Are “capitalists” somehow a different race or species from other humans?
“Healthcare companies” is a misnomer. You’re talking about health-insurance companies. And they don’t “kick out those they might have to pay”. If they did that, they’d go out of business in (relatively) short order. Do you understand the concept of insurance?
Do you think anyone would ever even consider pooping in his tablemate’s cereal bowl? This sounds to me like an appeal to ridicule.
Do you agree that it can be extremely difficult, if not impossible at times, to trace a chain of causality between one person’s profits and another’s death or misery? There’s also the question of intent – did the profiteer intentionally cause death and/or misery in order to profit? I think that’s an important issue. If you disagree, then it seems like you’re implicitly appealing to some notion of “cosmic justice”.
You and I both find it deplorable and disgusting when people harm others in order to benefit. The question is, what constitutes “harm”? It seems we’re using very different definitions there.
I was not aware that States had come anywhere near close to eliminating poverty and/or lack of healthcare. See, I can play that game too. 
By setting “eliminating poverty and/or lack of healthcare” as your standard of evaluation, I think you’re committing the nirvana fallacy. There’s also the question of how you’re defining “poverty” and “healthcare”.
The historical context doesn’t apply here. I’m talking about principles.
Do you understand the concept of self-ownership?
How can a community have distinct rights at all? I mean rights that are distinct from the individuals in its membership.
By “legitimate” I mean “morally permissible”. Elsewhere you seem to have indicated moral support for involuntary communities. I personally have no moral problem with communities, as long as they’re voluntary.
Morally legitimate? Certainly not. I see them as legitimate simply by the fact that they have and exercise power in society. This is what I mean partly, when I say there is a fundamental difference in our definition of terms. I am trying not to work in hypothetical lands that do not exist. If you see me saying something about what socialism will look like, it is usually “it is not for me to say (w/ usually a 'but perhaps like this”)."
It’s interesting that you apparently consider “capitalists” to be entirely amoral, if not immoral, with the converse applying to “non-capitalists”. Why is that? Are “capitalists” somehow a different race or species from other humans?
I find all people essentially amoral. Some may be immoral, but that is only in my opinion… and maybe many others. I do not think that I have ascribed a higher moral legitimacy for the worker. I do find them to be more legitimate, but I never said anything about their morality.
But, since people are generally amoral (because morality is a ghost), I find power in the hands of many, and/or through many channels, much more legitimate than power in the hands of the few.
Is democracy more morally justifiable than feudalism? That’s debatable (i think it is). Is it more justifiable on utilitarian grounds? Absolutely. So is capitalism, as a matter of fact.
“Healthcare companies” is a misnomer. You’re talking about health-insurance companies. And they don’t “kick out those they might have to pay”. If they did that, they’d go out of business in (relatively) short order. Do you understand the concept of insurance?
Got it. Perhaps I did use a little hyperbole. But these insurance companies most certainly did actively seek to pay out the least amount they could. And they have to. Obama’s “ending” of prexisting conditions is a tad better, but it is still doomed to failure as it does not address the deeper issues of what is stopping a patient’s access to a doctor. I am sure you agree with me on that. Where we differ is on how we define what those deeper issues are.
I was not aware that States had come anywhere near close to eliminating poverty and/or lack of healthcare. See, I can play that game too.
I wasn’t aware they had either. Wherein did I express support for the state? Certain communities do better than others tho… but that is a different argument.
By setting “eliminating poverty and/or lack of healthcare” as your standard of evaluation, I think you’re committing the nirvana fallacy. There’s also the question of how you’re defining “poverty” and “healthcare”.
That’s a valid point. It would be unwise to assume these things can be eliminated. Perhaps they can, perhaps they cannot. But I do assume they can be worked against.
Poverty is relative to the society. Many american workers live in poverty, but not nearly as much as 3rd world workers. It’s a matter of degree to where the level a society is/could be, and how much of it has access to such abundance.
The historical context doesn’t apply here. I’m talking about principles.
Do you understand the concept of self-ownership?
How can a community have distinct rights at all? I mean rights that are distinct from the individuals in its membership
Self ownership is by definition slavery, and if not, it is absurd. How does an entity “own” itself? If you own yourself, why does a rock not own itself? Because you can think? Arbitrary. If the mind is something different than the body, it is a slave master of it. If it is the same, it by definition cannot own itself.
The historical context always applies.
It cannot. A communities’ rights can not be distinctly different from the members in it. Where from would it derive it’s legitimacy. Remember I don’t see any fundamental difference between the Bic Corporation, the Vatican, the US government and this website. There is, in my view, only a difference of degree.
“Self ownership is by definition slavery, and if not, it is absurd. How does an entity “own” itself? If you own yourself, why does a rock not own itself? Because you can think? Arbitrary. If the mind is something different than the body, it is a slave master of it. If it is the same, it by definition cannot own itself.”
How is self-ownership slavery lol? Self-Ownership is a metaphor that signifies that the individual is sovereign.
His life, his body, his property and labor belongs to him.
All these who preach people should help disabled individuals, I ask you, why not do it yourself and others who agree with you.
There’s absolutely millions of people who complain about helping the poor… with other’s money.
Why don’t all these people unite and help the poor? It’s better that way, this way you also leave people who aren’t interested alone, like me for example.
“No one wants to be a sucker. If a disabled person lived in my building, I would help him only if others did. But if everyone thinks that way, no one will help at all.”
I don’t want to be mean, but doesn’t this say that your friend is a hypocrite?
The best way to solve the issue of free riders is not to help them… I don’t see other solutions.
You should probably read the rest of the thread. Your questions have already been answered.
The problem is that, in the modern age, many people (myself included) do believe the disabled to be prima facie entitled to assistance. And merely suggesting that the disabled should have had a trust fund, or some friends to help him out, does not cut it. If a disabled person dies because he/she could not get assistance, I feel personally responsible.
Which is a great outlook to have, and at the least it would be barbaric to me to sneer at such sentiments, but what can not be done is to turn such sentiment into a fact. This compunds itself when we are talking about the bloated federalized state that we have now that is incapable of knowing what actual problems exist within communities that deal with the issue, or how to allocate such wealth to deal with such problems..
Either way defederalization should be an obviously better alternative to dealig with such moral, cultural, intimate, and specific problems.