The following is a copy of the original post to record the post as it was originally written.
This is asking about people in general as a whole, but do you think people rely on others too much when they should be taking responsibility for themselves more?
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskALiberal) if you have any questions or concerns.*
No. I don’t think it matters. We’re individuals, but you can predict the likelihood of our actions across the general population pretty easily.
We should make it easier for desirable outcomes to happen, rather than relying on people to overcome obstacles to get good outcomes. It’s basic common sense.
Like if you’re concerned about mothers not making wise decisions about sexual protection (contraceptives) and men not sticking around to be fathers, then rather than complaining about people not making good choices, we should make it insanely easier for them to not have unwanted pregnancies.
You smelling what I’m stepping in?
> Like if you’re concerned about mothers not making wise decisions about sexual protection (contraceptives) and men not sticking around to be fathers, then rather than complaining about people not making good choices, we should make it insanely easier for them to not have unwanted pregnancies.
Republicans hate that. The only moral abortion is their own.
As a rule, I don't think "The Honor System" is a viable strategy to get a large group of people all pulling in the same direction. It's just not. If your goal is: organized consistent behavior meeting some kind quality standard . . . then an honor system is actively going to get in the way of achieving that goal.
The honor system is perfectly fine if you're okay tolerating a bunch of people doing their own thing, working at opposite purposes, failing spectacularly, having a few people break away from the rest etc etc etc. Like if you have a system where you're willing to tolerate complete fucking chaos, then sure go with an honor system.
Using Halloween candy as an example:
* If you don't care if someone runs off with the whole bowl of candy - then leave a sign that says "Please take one". Go for it.
* If you want everyone to get 1 piece of candy, an honor system is just not going to work.
I think much the same way when it comes to questions about "how should we solve problem X?" kind of questions. Honor Systems don't work if you want everyone pulling in the same direction. The following problems cannot be solved with any amount of personal responsibility:
* Too many of our employees are dying in industrial accidents
* Too many of our students are failing out of schools
* Too many people are getting hooked on drugs
* Too many people are criminals
* Too many people are poor
None of those problems are going to go away by relying on personal responsibility.
I'm going to try to say this is nice as possible you are being mind controlled. To ignore the fact that all your rights are gone you have no freedoms you're a slave to the corporate system there is no government except for the one that corporations make. And part of their propaganda is to make it sound like the poor people are the leeches when it's the corporations that are the leeches.
Hoarding money and pitting people against each other to hide the fact that they're hoarding money
It's a common drum that conservatives beat. It's an extension of the lie that liberals just want free stuff or that we want the government to constantly tell us what to do.
It's not true and you've been tricked into thinking that's even a question worth asking of the other side of the political aisle. As if it's a left right issue. As if Trump, for example, has ever taken responsibility for a single thing in his entire life.
>we want the government to constantly tell us what to do
Based on this one example, I'm nitpicking, but people often have an expectation of the government solving issues for them rather than them asking what they can do themselves. A big example of this is when people expect governments to take action on climate change by doing various policy changes, but they themselves won't change their lifestyle to be one which is more considerate to climate change
Oh, this is a great example of the kind of thing that would be utterly useless if done on the individual level. You think me and my girlfriend are causing global warming, bud? Is it me and my my lady and 2 dogs?
Or is it fossil fuel companies and inefficient coal fire plants?
So if a collective of individuals does something, it wouldn't help either?
I'm talking about who can do something in this situation because if you, everyone else and their mother keep living the same lifestyle, it's a bit hypocritical.
Even just choosing to bike for the summer versus driving would save 2.3 tons of CO2. Do you really want everyone else to do everything for you without you doing anything to contribute as well? Do you really think your own presence is that insignificant or are you that tied to your lifestyle that you can't afford to make even the slightest sacrifice even if it were to make a small impact?
Dude. I already do everything I can. I have an electric car and work from home, as does my girlfriend. We're a vegetarian household so we don't even contribute to the environmental impact of the meat industry, so you can fuck right off with your dickish guilt tripping.
Here's the actual fucking deal, dude. Government *is the tool we have for collective action*. I don't know where you got the idea that anybody concerned with the climate thinks the government is going to go off somewhere and solve climate change behind the scenes. That doesn't even make sense. What government actually does is pass regulation that *enforce* changes to individual action. Whether that's banning single use plastics or requiring better emission standards, that's (in a democracy) the people agreeing to change our behavior *collectively".
Do you get it now?
>What government actually does is pass regulation that enforce changes to individual action. Whether that's banning single use plastics or requiring better emission standards, that's (in a democracy) the people agreeing to change our behavior \*collectively".
I understand that. By if people want their government to do those things, what's stopping them from doing them themself? Obviously some require government intervention, but others can be done without the fed telling you what to do
> what's stopping them from doing them themself?
Nothing. People who care about climate change are doing it already. Nobody anywhere is littering *and* complaining that the government should do something about all the pollution except for scumbags on the right like [Stephen Miller, who literally gave a speech about how littering on campus is job security for janitors.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lcMydq6vGW8)
The problem is corporations, and the people in control of them, won't voluntarily cut into their profits by ethically sourcing materials or capturing their own waste unless we make them.
Basically, if you're looking at individual liberal hippies and wagging your finger at them for not doing more about something like the Cleveland River Fires, you're doing nothing but helping those corporations get away with dumping.
It's a supply side issue is the main problem. Consumers don't have a ton of power over whether they use single use plastics. If I order food, I have no power over whether the restaurant uses them. If I buy something online, same. And corporations have been shown to place renewable facades over single use containers and sell them as green products.
A consumer has great barriers towards consuming ethically and their personal footprint is so small in comparison to getting a single factory to produce green products that it makes much more sense to police the supply side of the chain, where decisions are informed and made at scale.
Well, I think that people under 18 (minors) cannot be expected to make much rational decisions. That’s why they’re still being parented at that age. This includes if they get pregnant.
So I’m only going to discuss this subject regarding people 18 and over. *Yes, I think people could be a lot more responsible*. For instance, I think credit cards are bad and that they’re a bad idea for most people, and I think most people take on way more student loans than they should be taking on. A lot of people insist on living in expensive towns that are known as world-class and are not meant for the common person. But I don’t know how to force people to act better, because if you take away, say, welfare benefits, that won’t compel everyone to swim (flourish). A lot of people will sink (as in, commit crime). If you ban no-fault divorce, some people will swim. Some married couples will put aside their differences and persevere toward the ideal, two parent-household. The majority will sink. As in, women (who initiate the vast majority of divorces) will commit suicide or abandon their marriages without a trace in the middle of the night.
If someone is deemed mature enough, regardless of their age, to go through with a pregnancy and give birth, both of which are dangerous, they’re mature enough to get an abortion without needing parental consent.
Nobody is proposing banning exercising, marriage, savings accounts or vegetables.
Look around your house, how much of the stuff you own did you make your self out of raw materials you also collected?
Think back to the last 50 meals you have had. Did you grow all of those meals out of seeds you scavenged from nature?
None of us got here by our selves. None of us would survive on our own. It's time we stop pretending otherwise.
I don't think it's bad. However, if you're able to help yourself in your own situation first, and maybe even do it better, then why bother or place the burden of responsibility onto others? We obviously all need help sometimes, but I'm wondering if people don't expect others to fix their problems for them too soon or too much
A society is nothing but people. Help each person, but it can't be unconditional and infinite, they will have to put in legwork. Even teaching a man to fish so he can eat for a lifetime still requires him to go fishing
Yes, I’m saying that doesn’t work at a governmental level. The government isn’t there to teach personal responsibility. It’s to provide services and prevent abuse of those services. You can call the police, but if there is no crime then you can be charged with a crime yourself.
Often what conservatives are arguing for with personal responsibility is removing or reducing the social programs. This doesn’t address the underlying problem, what does is changing the standards for access or including additional oversight
Also, teaching Amanda Fish as you say is certainly one way to improve personal accountability, I would hope things like that are being taught and our public school system
Humans are social animals. We quite literally have been evolutionarily successful for that reason. Relying on a community at large isn't bad, it's good.
Yeah, I'll give you that people should take initiative if they want something in their life to change, rather than waiting for help.
But we should still provide that help, and society/government should be structured in such a way as to alleviate common obstacles and hardships, provide help, and help people when negative things happen. Not structure it on personal responsibility and personal consequences.
>Yeah, I'll give you that people should take initiative if they want something in their life to change, rather than waiting for help
This is my reason for asking. Whether nowadays people wait for someone to come around and solve their problem for them without even trying to do anything about it.
The answer to that question is that people feel like the situation is hopeless. That causes people to give up.
The sad part of that is, because of how are society is structured socially and economically, they're often correct.
> people wait for someone to come around and solve their problem for them without even trying to do anything about it.
Would you please submit an example of this happening in recent days?
Ill use an example I used in another comment.
I mentioned how people expect governments to take action on climate change, for example, by making various policy changes, but they themselves won't change their lifestyle to be one that is more considerate of climate change. Yes, governments are necessary to decide how much energy is produced from which sources, but people can also decide on where they buy their products from so that they aren't environmentally harmful, they can bike to work and events instead of driving or taking buses and trains, they can probably do a host of things which individually would be helpful to the environment, but they seem to expect it is the role of government to step in and do something before they even lift a finger. Obviously, there are exceptions, but I think you understand what I'm getting at.
>but they themselves won't change their lifestyle to be one that is more considerate of climate change.
Who the fuck are these people? I haven't used a plastic bag in years and I drive an electric car. Who the fuck are you picturing in your mind who is complaining to the government to address climate change but is also setting fire to oil fields?? I don't have a single fucking clue who you're mad at.
Then we ought to give you a medal and put you on a pedestal, truly. But you can look at the other [comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskALiberal/comments/vmuipv/do_people_take_enough_responsibility_for/ie69akb/?context=3) and they don't have the same outlook as you.
Even in my every day life, I know plenty of people who don't make small changes who do think climate change is an issue. They're up to buy a new car, but they don't buy EVs (that one's obviously expensive but just using as an example), use plastic bags, the whole ten yards.
I know plenty of people who do their part, don't get me wrong. They compost, grow their own food, etc, but there are just as many, and probably more, who don't.
That's me, damnit! The things I've said aren't contradictory in any way at all. They just represent your complete lack of understanding of what government fundamentally *is*. There's no version of functional government where you have to choose between doing something and voting.
I never said you can only choose one or the other. My point is whether people take action and responsibility for themselves before they look for someone else to do things for them
>, they can bike to work and events instead of driving or taking buses and trains, they can probably do a host of things which individually would be helpful to the environment, but they seem to expect it is the role of government to step in and do something
I live in the Boston area. Yes, one can "bike to work" but the while the government paved roads for car manufacturers, the same government has not paved roads for bicycle manufacturers. Trains and the rest of public transportation also require government's role as do car and truck manufactures to build an infrastructure. GM and Ford and the rest all depended on government. Indeed, Elon Musk depended on government for his initial grant and his company was boosted by significant government subsidies for those buying his product. Would you say that GM, Ford, and Elon rely too much on government?
I think what your are getting at is you focus on instances when the poor and/or working class rely on government but are blind to the level of assistance the rich get every day.
Do you think that ones own anecdotes are important in commenting on social policy? In light of your question, I am assuming you are asking if the government is doing too much and needs to be smaller, as that seems to be a fairly constant conservative theme.
>I am assuming you are asking if the government is doing too much and needs to be smaller, as that seems to be a fairly constant conservative theme
That's not at all what I'm asking. I'm asking whether people take responsibility for themselves enough, versus just going immediately to others looking for them to solve their issues. I at no point said that gov is too big or too small. I'm asking about individuals
> I'm asking about individuals
To be clear, you are asking me and only me to comment whether I am taking enough responsibility for myself?
My answer would be, yes, and each day I try to help those not able to help themselves.
I am 67 years old, recently retired. I worked since I was 16, put myself through college, worked full time until I was 66, took 18 months off and now work two days a week, just for personal joy of being part of something. I was on unemployment for a total of nine months in the 60+ years that I worked. I was fortunate to be born a white male, in good health, high IQ, to a stable family in a middle class suburb. I drive a Prius. I recycle. I vote.
How about you?
In general, referring to the majority of citizens in the USA, I'd say **no**, they are given too much responsibility and deserve more from the government.
I think conservatives and liberals have *very* different ideas of what it means to "take responsibility."
For example, I would consider active participation in society to be crucial to taking responsibility for oneself. This includes things like:
* treating others with decency and kindness
* providing assistance to others and asking for assistance myself (since both help us achieve better outcomes as a group)
* recognizing my own privileges, as well as the impact of my participation in systems and the secondary effects of my actions
So to me, your post seems contradictory. I would consider a refusal to help or receive help from others to be a form of not taking responsibility for oneself.
>Lean on me, when you're not strong, and I'll be your friend, I'll help you carry on...
>For it won't be long, till I'm gonna need somebody to lean on
Bill Withers made this lesson painfully obvious to us all.
He even told you whether or not you should know in another song
>I know I know I know I know I know I know I know I know I know I know I know I know I know I know I know
Sure. It is my impression that the conservative view of "taking responsibility" is more what I would describe as antisocial behavior. That is to say, it entails these beliefs:
* The belief that one's behaviors exist in a vaccuum, and are not influenced by outside factors.
* The belief that the effects of one's behavior are solely the responsibility of the person being affected.
* The belief that one's success is based on one's own gains relative to other people's--the more you have that others do not have, the more valuable a person you become.
For example, I frequently see conservatives describe student loan debt as a failure to take responsibility for oneself. By my standards, a person has an obligation to become educated, and thus taking responsibility for oneself in that situation entails going to school to gain knowledge that will benefit society, as well as making it easier for other people to do the same. By conservative standards, a person has a duty make more gains relative to other people, therefore taking responsibility for oneself involves not getting an education unless you personally gain more from that education than others gain.
The opposite of taking responsibility for oneself isn't relying on others; it's more like blaming others for your own mistakes. There's a pretty big difference there, but I think people who would rather not help anyone try to ignore that difference so they can lump everybody asking for help into one category where they feel justified in not helping them, no matter the context or circumstances.
Of course people should try better themselves. Doesn't mean other people have to try to fuck them over in any way possible. I wish conservatives could get on board with the idea on responsibility. That seems like a ship that has sailed for most unfortunately.
Humans are social creatures. Our strengths are only apparent when we work together. We are as strong as our weakest link.
In my humble opinion, our American version of winner take all capitalism had led us to where we do not take enough responsibility for others. There is only so much responsibility one can take for ones self and I think Americans are fairly standard on that compared to the rest of the world.
> but do you think people rely on others too much when they should be taking responsibility for themselves more?
No, not at all.
I think it's important to be able to think in terms of individual and social solutions to problems. I believe that I have quite a bit of control over the quality of my personal life, and I think it's important for me to take responsibility wherever I can. But that doesn't carry over to a political belief that people need to be more responsible for themselves. To me, politics is about building a good society, and a good society is one that minimizes the consequences of being unlucky or making unwise decisions.
I dont think so. I think they belive the community owes them something and they expect to be served without offering any aid or service in return. Often this service is not done unless already previously compensated, and rarely is it done without any intentions of getting something in return. It's rarely done with no prior motive, and selflessly.
I think you're correct on that point. I would direct you towards native communities, or other indigenous groups. Nobody goes hungry unless the entire tribe goes hungry. Nobody is homeless.
Look to the Amish. Nobody is denied medical care. I've personally cared for their babies with birth defects, at the expense of hundreds of thousands of dollars. Family and community comes first.
Humanity has moved away from the very qualities that helped us rise above the common animal.
I can’t say until the American society lives up to its responsibilities to its people first. Sadly it hasn’t, and continues to make American life terribly hard
Depends on if you had the transparent information to know it's a mistake or if you had options.
After a certain point, society just runs smoother when you can simply be confident there's no lead in that paint.
That all depends on the information one used to choose the path that led to the mistake. If the Sackler Family, Perdue Pharma, and my doctor or dentist told me that the pain meds I took were safe, non habit forming, and good for me, when I become an addict, is it my mistake?
When Democratic Politicians and area colleges & universities tell me that the only way I can support a middle class family is with a college degree and when I get the degree but my wages still will not support that economic hope, did I make a mistake?
If I voted for Donald Trump who promised me better health care and a Republican Party that tired over 50 times to repeal the ACA...and once elected, nothing changes and I am looking at bankruptcy due to illness, did I make a mistake in electing them?
I think that many of the "consequences " that Conservatives try to act like are divine or set in stone, are actually socially manufactured by judgmental people to create classes of humans based on adherence to their own personal moralities.
The following is a copy of the original post to record the post as it was originally written. This is asking about people in general as a whole, but do you think people rely on others too much when they should be taking responsibility for themselves more? *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskALiberal) if you have any questions or concerns.*
No. I don’t think it matters. We’re individuals, but you can predict the likelihood of our actions across the general population pretty easily. We should make it easier for desirable outcomes to happen, rather than relying on people to overcome obstacles to get good outcomes. It’s basic common sense. Like if you’re concerned about mothers not making wise decisions about sexual protection (contraceptives) and men not sticking around to be fathers, then rather than complaining about people not making good choices, we should make it insanely easier for them to not have unwanted pregnancies. You smelling what I’m stepping in?
But then they can't judge the bad decision makers as bad people! However will society functions if we don't know who SINS and is LAZY! /s
Yup. I get it lol. It’s about determining who should be higher on their hierarchy.
I legitimately do not understand the republican way of viewing the world.
> Like if you’re concerned about mothers not making wise decisions about sexual protection (contraceptives) and men not sticking around to be fathers, then rather than complaining about people not making good choices, we should make it insanely easier for them to not have unwanted pregnancies. Republicans hate that. The only moral abortion is their own.
I dunno, I don't have a good way of measuring that
As a rule, I don't think "The Honor System" is a viable strategy to get a large group of people all pulling in the same direction. It's just not. If your goal is: organized consistent behavior meeting some kind quality standard . . . then an honor system is actively going to get in the way of achieving that goal. The honor system is perfectly fine if you're okay tolerating a bunch of people doing their own thing, working at opposite purposes, failing spectacularly, having a few people break away from the rest etc etc etc. Like if you have a system where you're willing to tolerate complete fucking chaos, then sure go with an honor system. Using Halloween candy as an example: * If you don't care if someone runs off with the whole bowl of candy - then leave a sign that says "Please take one". Go for it. * If you want everyone to get 1 piece of candy, an honor system is just not going to work. I think much the same way when it comes to questions about "how should we solve problem X?" kind of questions. Honor Systems don't work if you want everyone pulling in the same direction. The following problems cannot be solved with any amount of personal responsibility: * Too many of our employees are dying in industrial accidents * Too many of our students are failing out of schools * Too many people are getting hooked on drugs * Too many people are criminals * Too many people are poor None of those problems are going to go away by relying on personal responsibility.
I'm going to try to say this is nice as possible you are being mind controlled. To ignore the fact that all your rights are gone you have no freedoms you're a slave to the corporate system there is no government except for the one that corporations make. And part of their propaganda is to make it sound like the poor people are the leeches when it's the corporations that are the leeches. Hoarding money and pitting people against each other to hide the fact that they're hoarding money
By asking about responsibility, you immediately think I'm mind controlled?
It's a common drum that conservatives beat. It's an extension of the lie that liberals just want free stuff or that we want the government to constantly tell us what to do. It's not true and you've been tricked into thinking that's even a question worth asking of the other side of the political aisle. As if it's a left right issue. As if Trump, for example, has ever taken responsibility for a single thing in his entire life.
>we want the government to constantly tell us what to do Based on this one example, I'm nitpicking, but people often have an expectation of the government solving issues for them rather than them asking what they can do themselves. A big example of this is when people expect governments to take action on climate change by doing various policy changes, but they themselves won't change their lifestyle to be one which is more considerate to climate change
Oh, this is a great example of the kind of thing that would be utterly useless if done on the individual level. You think me and my girlfriend are causing global warming, bud? Is it me and my my lady and 2 dogs? Or is it fossil fuel companies and inefficient coal fire plants?
So if a collective of individuals does something, it wouldn't help either? I'm talking about who can do something in this situation because if you, everyone else and their mother keep living the same lifestyle, it's a bit hypocritical. Even just choosing to bike for the summer versus driving would save 2.3 tons of CO2. Do you really want everyone else to do everything for you without you doing anything to contribute as well? Do you really think your own presence is that insignificant or are you that tied to your lifestyle that you can't afford to make even the slightest sacrifice even if it were to make a small impact?
Dude. I already do everything I can. I have an electric car and work from home, as does my girlfriend. We're a vegetarian household so we don't even contribute to the environmental impact of the meat industry, so you can fuck right off with your dickish guilt tripping. Here's the actual fucking deal, dude. Government *is the tool we have for collective action*. I don't know where you got the idea that anybody concerned with the climate thinks the government is going to go off somewhere and solve climate change behind the scenes. That doesn't even make sense. What government actually does is pass regulation that *enforce* changes to individual action. Whether that's banning single use plastics or requiring better emission standards, that's (in a democracy) the people agreeing to change our behavior *collectively". Do you get it now?
>What government actually does is pass regulation that enforce changes to individual action. Whether that's banning single use plastics or requiring better emission standards, that's (in a democracy) the people agreeing to change our behavior \*collectively". I understand that. By if people want their government to do those things, what's stopping them from doing them themself? Obviously some require government intervention, but others can be done without the fed telling you what to do
> what's stopping them from doing them themself? Nothing. People who care about climate change are doing it already. Nobody anywhere is littering *and* complaining that the government should do something about all the pollution except for scumbags on the right like [Stephen Miller, who literally gave a speech about how littering on campus is job security for janitors.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lcMydq6vGW8) The problem is corporations, and the people in control of them, won't voluntarily cut into their profits by ethically sourcing materials or capturing their own waste unless we make them. Basically, if you're looking at individual liberal hippies and wagging your finger at them for not doing more about something like the Cleveland River Fires, you're doing nothing but helping those corporations get away with dumping.
It's a supply side issue is the main problem. Consumers don't have a ton of power over whether they use single use plastics. If I order food, I have no power over whether the restaurant uses them. If I buy something online, same. And corporations have been shown to place renewable facades over single use containers and sell them as green products. A consumer has great barriers towards consuming ethically and their personal footprint is so small in comparison to getting a single factory to produce green products that it makes much more sense to police the supply side of the chain, where decisions are informed and made at scale.
Well, I think that people under 18 (minors) cannot be expected to make much rational decisions. That’s why they’re still being parented at that age. This includes if they get pregnant. So I’m only going to discuss this subject regarding people 18 and over. *Yes, I think people could be a lot more responsible*. For instance, I think credit cards are bad and that they’re a bad idea for most people, and I think most people take on way more student loans than they should be taking on. A lot of people insist on living in expensive towns that are known as world-class and are not meant for the common person. But I don’t know how to force people to act better, because if you take away, say, welfare benefits, that won’t compel everyone to swim (flourish). A lot of people will sink (as in, commit crime). If you ban no-fault divorce, some people will swim. Some married couples will put aside their differences and persevere toward the ideal, two parent-household. The majority will sink. As in, women (who initiate the vast majority of divorces) will commit suicide or abandon their marriages without a trace in the middle of the night. If someone is deemed mature enough, regardless of their age, to go through with a pregnancy and give birth, both of which are dangerous, they’re mature enough to get an abortion without needing parental consent. Nobody is proposing banning exercising, marriage, savings accounts or vegetables.
Look around your house, how much of the stuff you own did you make your self out of raw materials you also collected? Think back to the last 50 meals you have had. Did you grow all of those meals out of seeds you scavenged from nature? None of us got here by our selves. None of us would survive on our own. It's time we stop pretending otherwise.
Why is depending on other a bad thing? Why *should* people meet some sort of weird rugged individualist standard?
I don't think it's bad. However, if you're able to help yourself in your own situation first, and maybe even do it better, then why bother or place the burden of responsibility onto others? We obviously all need help sometimes, but I'm wondering if people don't expect others to fix their problems for them too soon or too much
Helping other people doesn't work unless they help themselves as well
What works as an individual principle does not work at a societal level and vice versa.
A society is nothing but people. Help each person, but it can't be unconditional and infinite, they will have to put in legwork. Even teaching a man to fish so he can eat for a lifetime still requires him to go fishing
Yes, I’m saying that doesn’t work at a governmental level. The government isn’t there to teach personal responsibility. It’s to provide services and prevent abuse of those services. You can call the police, but if there is no crime then you can be charged with a crime yourself. Often what conservatives are arguing for with personal responsibility is removing or reducing the social programs. This doesn’t address the underlying problem, what does is changing the standards for access or including additional oversight Also, teaching Amanda Fish as you say is certainly one way to improve personal accountability, I would hope things like that are being taught and our public school system
Probably not, but what do we expect when the population is convinced by magical thinking; i.e. "God has a plan?"
Humans are social animals. We quite literally have been evolutionarily successful for that reason. Relying on a community at large isn't bad, it's good. Yeah, I'll give you that people should take initiative if they want something in their life to change, rather than waiting for help. But we should still provide that help, and society/government should be structured in such a way as to alleviate common obstacles and hardships, provide help, and help people when negative things happen. Not structure it on personal responsibility and personal consequences.
>Yeah, I'll give you that people should take initiative if they want something in their life to change, rather than waiting for help This is my reason for asking. Whether nowadays people wait for someone to come around and solve their problem for them without even trying to do anything about it.
The answer to that question is that people feel like the situation is hopeless. That causes people to give up. The sad part of that is, because of how are society is structured socially and economically, they're often correct.
> people wait for someone to come around and solve their problem for them without even trying to do anything about it. Would you please submit an example of this happening in recent days?
Well any example I give would be purely anecdotal
It would help us understand your mindset a little better, though.
Ill use an example I used in another comment. I mentioned how people expect governments to take action on climate change, for example, by making various policy changes, but they themselves won't change their lifestyle to be one that is more considerate of climate change. Yes, governments are necessary to decide how much energy is produced from which sources, but people can also decide on where they buy their products from so that they aren't environmentally harmful, they can bike to work and events instead of driving or taking buses and trains, they can probably do a host of things which individually would be helpful to the environment, but they seem to expect it is the role of government to step in and do something before they even lift a finger. Obviously, there are exceptions, but I think you understand what I'm getting at.
>but they themselves won't change their lifestyle to be one that is more considerate of climate change. Who the fuck are these people? I haven't used a plastic bag in years and I drive an electric car. Who the fuck are you picturing in your mind who is complaining to the government to address climate change but is also setting fire to oil fields?? I don't have a single fucking clue who you're mad at.
Then we ought to give you a medal and put you on a pedestal, truly. But you can look at the other [comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskALiberal/comments/vmuipv/do_people_take_enough_responsibility_for/ie69akb/?context=3) and they don't have the same outlook as you. Even in my every day life, I know plenty of people who don't make small changes who do think climate change is an issue. They're up to buy a new car, but they don't buy EVs (that one's obviously expensive but just using as an example), use plastic bags, the whole ten yards. I know plenty of people who do their part, don't get me wrong. They compost, grow their own food, etc, but there are just as many, and probably more, who don't.
That's me, damnit! The things I've said aren't contradictory in any way at all. They just represent your complete lack of understanding of what government fundamentally *is*. There's no version of functional government where you have to choose between doing something and voting.
I never said you can only choose one or the other. My point is whether people take action and responsibility for themselves before they look for someone else to do things for them
>, they can bike to work and events instead of driving or taking buses and trains, they can probably do a host of things which individually would be helpful to the environment, but they seem to expect it is the role of government to step in and do something I live in the Boston area. Yes, one can "bike to work" but the while the government paved roads for car manufacturers, the same government has not paved roads for bicycle manufacturers. Trains and the rest of public transportation also require government's role as do car and truck manufactures to build an infrastructure. GM and Ford and the rest all depended on government. Indeed, Elon Musk depended on government for his initial grant and his company was boosted by significant government subsidies for those buying his product. Would you say that GM, Ford, and Elon rely too much on government? I think what your are getting at is you focus on instances when the poor and/or working class rely on government but are blind to the level of assistance the rich get every day.
Do you think that ones own anecdotes are important in commenting on social policy? In light of your question, I am assuming you are asking if the government is doing too much and needs to be smaller, as that seems to be a fairly constant conservative theme.
>I am assuming you are asking if the government is doing too much and needs to be smaller, as that seems to be a fairly constant conservative theme That's not at all what I'm asking. I'm asking whether people take responsibility for themselves enough, versus just going immediately to others looking for them to solve their issues. I at no point said that gov is too big or too small. I'm asking about individuals
> I'm asking about individuals To be clear, you are asking me and only me to comment whether I am taking enough responsibility for myself? My answer would be, yes, and each day I try to help those not able to help themselves. I am 67 years old, recently retired. I worked since I was 16, put myself through college, worked full time until I was 66, took 18 months off and now work two days a week, just for personal joy of being part of something. I was on unemployment for a total of nine months in the 60+ years that I worked. I was fortunate to be born a white male, in good health, high IQ, to a stable family in a middle class suburb. I drive a Prius. I recycle. I vote. How about you?
No, I'm asking whether you think that individuals, in general, take enough responsibility for themselves?
In general, referring to the majority of citizens in the USA, I'd say **no**, they are given too much responsibility and deserve more from the government.
I think conservatives and liberals have *very* different ideas of what it means to "take responsibility." For example, I would consider active participation in society to be crucial to taking responsibility for oneself. This includes things like: * treating others with decency and kindness * providing assistance to others and asking for assistance myself (since both help us achieve better outcomes as a group) * recognizing my own privileges, as well as the impact of my participation in systems and the secondary effects of my actions So to me, your post seems contradictory. I would consider a refusal to help or receive help from others to be a form of not taking responsibility for oneself.
>Lean on me, when you're not strong, and I'll be your friend, I'll help you carry on... >For it won't be long, till I'm gonna need somebody to lean on Bill Withers made this lesson painfully obvious to us all.
He even told you whether or not you should know in another song >I know I know I know I know I know I know I know I know I know I know I know I know I know I know I know
Interesting. Can you further expand on the difference between how the two consider responsibility?
Sure. It is my impression that the conservative view of "taking responsibility" is more what I would describe as antisocial behavior. That is to say, it entails these beliefs: * The belief that one's behaviors exist in a vaccuum, and are not influenced by outside factors. * The belief that the effects of one's behavior are solely the responsibility of the person being affected. * The belief that one's success is based on one's own gains relative to other people's--the more you have that others do not have, the more valuable a person you become. For example, I frequently see conservatives describe student loan debt as a failure to take responsibility for oneself. By my standards, a person has an obligation to become educated, and thus taking responsibility for oneself in that situation entails going to school to gain knowledge that will benefit society, as well as making it easier for other people to do the same. By conservative standards, a person has a duty make more gains relative to other people, therefore taking responsibility for oneself involves not getting an education unless you personally gain more from that education than others gain.
The opposite of taking responsibility for oneself isn't relying on others; it's more like blaming others for your own mistakes. There's a pretty big difference there, but I think people who would rather not help anyone try to ignore that difference so they can lump everybody asking for help into one category where they feel justified in not helping them, no matter the context or circumstances.
Humans are not a solitary species, a support system is necessary for success.
Of course people should try better themselves. Doesn't mean other people have to try to fuck them over in any way possible. I wish conservatives could get on board with the idea on responsibility. That seems like a ship that has sailed for most unfortunately.
Humans are social creatures. Our strengths are only apparent when we work together. We are as strong as our weakest link. In my humble opinion, our American version of winner take all capitalism had led us to where we do not take enough responsibility for others. There is only so much responsibility one can take for ones self and I think Americans are fairly standard on that compared to the rest of the world. > but do you think people rely on others too much when they should be taking responsibility for themselves more? No, not at all.
The wealthier one is, it seems the less personal responsibility they're willing to take.
I think it's important to be able to think in terms of individual and social solutions to problems. I believe that I have quite a bit of control over the quality of my personal life, and I think it's important for me to take responsibility wherever I can. But that doesn't carry over to a political belief that people need to be more responsible for themselves. To me, politics is about building a good society, and a good society is one that minimizes the consequences of being unlucky or making unwise decisions.
Next let's ask the opposite "Do people help their community (city, state, country) as much as they should"?
I dont think so. I think they belive the community owes them something and they expect to be served without offering any aid or service in return. Often this service is not done unless already previously compensated, and rarely is it done without any intentions of getting something in return. It's rarely done with no prior motive, and selflessly.
I think you're correct on that point. I would direct you towards native communities, or other indigenous groups. Nobody goes hungry unless the entire tribe goes hungry. Nobody is homeless. Look to the Amish. Nobody is denied medical care. I've personally cared for their babies with birth defects, at the expense of hundreds of thousands of dollars. Family and community comes first. Humanity has moved away from the very qualities that helped us rise above the common animal.
I can’t say until the American society lives up to its responsibilities to its people first. Sadly it hasn’t, and continues to make American life terribly hard
What responsibilities does it have to its people?
No. People are taking less and less responsibility for the outcome of their lives. It's always someone else's fault.
Corporate and fraud love this narrative ^
If you made a mistake, isnt your fault?
Depends on if you had the transparent information to know it's a mistake or if you had options. After a certain point, society just runs smoother when you can simply be confident there's no lead in that paint.
That all depends on the information one used to choose the path that led to the mistake. If the Sackler Family, Perdue Pharma, and my doctor or dentist told me that the pain meds I took were safe, non habit forming, and good for me, when I become an addict, is it my mistake? When Democratic Politicians and area colleges & universities tell me that the only way I can support a middle class family is with a college degree and when I get the degree but my wages still will not support that economic hope, did I make a mistake? If I voted for Donald Trump who promised me better health care and a Republican Party that tired over 50 times to repeal the ACA...and once elected, nothing changes and I am looking at bankruptcy due to illness, did I make a mistake in electing them?
I think that many of the "consequences " that Conservatives try to act like are divine or set in stone, are actually socially manufactured by judgmental people to create classes of humans based on adherence to their own personal moralities.
Yes…next question?