Author Topic: AOC is making a list? GOP will probably help her check it twice.  (Read 4451 times)

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
AOC is making a list? GOP will probably help her check it twice.
« on: February 28, 2019, 11:08:32 PM »
https://www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/powerpost/house-democrats-explode-in-recriminations-as-liberals-lash-out-at-moderates/2019/02/28/c3d163fe-3b87-11e9-a06c-3ec8ed509d15_story.html

Quote
Corbin Trent, a spokesman for Ocasio-Cortez, said she told her colleagues that Democrats who side with Republicans “are putting themselves on a list.”

“She said that when activists ask her why she had to vote for a gun safety bill that also further empowers an agency that forcibly injects kids with psychotropic drugs, they’re going to want a list of names and she’s going to give it to them,” Trent said, referring to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

Oh my.

Crunch

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: AOC is making a list? GOP will probably help her check it twice.
« Reply #1 on: February 06, 2020, 09:39:46 AM »
We haven’t heard from AOC in a while. What’s she up to? Well, she’s being AOC

Quote
You know, this idea and this metaphor of a bootstrap started off as a joke because it’s a physical impossibility to lift yourself up by a bootstrap, by your shoelaces? It’s physically impossible. The whole thing is a joke.

Kids, that’s the real. That’s her mental prowess on display. I know, sounds like something from The Onion but it’s for real, not a parody at all.

I guess nobody should tell her about “raining cats and dogs”.

rightleft22

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: AOC is making a list? GOP will probably help her check it twice.
« Reply #2 on: February 06, 2020, 09:53:29 AM »
You guys make me laugh so hard. pot calling the kettle black.
With your man talking so much nonsense, and defending it, you lost your right to call out other peoples nonsense...

OMG so funny

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: AOC is making a list? GOP will probably help her check it twice.
« Reply #3 on: February 06, 2020, 10:57:31 AM »
You know, Crunch, it is entirely possible to make the remark she made and mean by it something like "No one lifts themselves up by only their only powers. No one." And I would say the same if asked. Anyone who thinks they did it all themselves is delusional on such a scale that they don't know a windmill from a cyclops. So maybe she meant that? We'd need the context, I suppose. I guess it's also possible that she literally doesn't understand what the bootstrap metaphor is supposed to mean, but it seems to me that's the less likely option.

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: AOC is making a list? GOP will probably help her check it twice.
« Reply #4 on: February 06, 2020, 11:16:36 AM »
fun history on the metaphor origin

Quote
Etymologist Barry Popik and linguist and lexicographer Ben Zimmer have cited an American newspaper snippet from Sept. 30, 1834 as the earliest published reference to lifting oneself up by one’s bootstraps. A month earlier, a man named Nimrod Murphree announced in the Nashville Banner that he had “discovered perpetual motion.” The Mobile Advertiser picked up this tidbit and published it with a snarky response ridiculing his claim: “Probably Mr. Murphree has succeeded in handing himself over the Cumberland river, or a barn yard fence, by the straps of his boots.”

Quote
Zimmer, who is currently a columnist for The Wall Street Journal, first looked into the phrase in 2005 for an American Dialect Society newsletter. In his research, he came across claims that the expression dates back to the story of Baron Munchausen, a fictional 18th-century German nobleman who was famous for telling tall tales about his sensational achievements as a soldier and world traveler. In one such tale, he manages to launch himself up out of a swamp by pulling on his own hair.

So now whenever you hear somebody talking about pulling yourself up by your bootstraps, have a little giggle.

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: AOC is making a list? GOP will probably help her check it twice.
« Reply #5 on: February 06, 2020, 11:25:56 AM »
Yes, that background lends credence to AOC's remark.

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: AOC is making a list? GOP will probably help her check it twice.
« Reply #6 on: February 06, 2020, 11:37:24 AM »
It doesn't mean crap about AOC's remark. I just thought it was a fun background story that might brighten someone's day.

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: AOC is making a list? GOP will probably help her check it twice.
« Reply #7 on: February 06, 2020, 11:38:40 AM »
You know, Crunch, it is entirely possible to make the remark she made and mean by it something like "No one lifts themselves up by only their only powers. No one." And I would say the same if asked. Anyone who thinks they did it all themselves is delusional on such a scale that they don't know a windmill from a cyclops.

But that's only part of the story Fenring.  Does anyone really believe that no one is critical to anything?  That Dr. Martin Luther King was just filling a void created by others and anyone could have done the same?  That JFK's assassination didn't change our course?  That every single inventor of a product was truly replaceable?  I mean sure, without Bill Gates, we still get to computers, but do we get them in the same way?

The argument that AOC is making relies on a truism - everyone gets some help in life, even if it's just being taught things - into an attack, that therefore no one's success is really their own, it belongs to the entire community.  The Attack is false, and it doesn't follow as necessary from the truism.  People can have been helped and still be the sole force driving something great. 

Some movements will still get where they are going, women's sufferage was going to happen, there were many leaders involved (we just honor Susan B. Anthony as a kind of token representing a lot of women (and men) that were involved).  Other times, I'm not so convinced.  Trump by all accounts has fundamentally shifted the entire Republican party, without Trump does that happen?  I doubt it.

But it's incredibly dangerous thinking to accept that because AOC can state the obvious, that the her conclusions somehow on that obvious statement are valid.  And it should go without saying, that when she advocates for policies based on her conclusions (for example that it's okay to tax the rich to the bone, because they didn't really earn that money - it was society that earned the money and theft that the person that received it took so much) that she should be called to account.

Quote
So maybe she meant that? We'd need the context, I suppose. I guess it's also possible that she literally doesn't understand what the bootstrap metaphor is supposed to mean, but it seems to me that's the less likely option.

You need less context.  We spend too much time ignoring the obvious in search of the esoteric.  AOC knows exactly what she wants and she tells it to you.  What she wants is wrong.

Crunch

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: AOC is making a list? GOP will probably help her check it twice.
« Reply #8 on: February 06, 2020, 12:00:41 PM »
You guys make me laugh so hard. pot calling the kettle black.
With your man talking so much nonsense, and defending it, you lost your right to call out other peoples nonsense...

OMG so funny

Having it dished back at you isn’t quite as fun is it?

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: AOC is making a list? GOP will probably help her check it twice.
« Reply #9 on: February 06, 2020, 12:19:14 PM »
So Seriati,

You think her comment is clearly being meant as a justification for [insert socialist policy here]? If so I can see how you'd disagree with her reasoning, but that's not the same as ridiculing her statement on its face. The statement can be fine on its own but also be misused. I can say "what goes up must come down" and then look like a fool when I claim that objects in outer space must therefore "come down." But it doesn't mean the original maxim is stupid; it's just that its meaning must be understood to be within a certain context - in the case of my example, a strong gravity well.

Assuming you're right that she's talking about billionaires and how they 'didn't really' earn their money, I have a hard time discounting the statement out of hand if what she means is "they didn't entirely earn it themselves." The 'not entirely' becomes a quantitative proposition, where perhaps we'd need to assess what amount of what was done was only possible on the work and sweat of others. I agree with you that we also must not discount the individual risk-taker, entrepeneur, inventor, and so forth; that counts for more than just 'another cog in the machine.' But how much more? I think trying to qualify the "how much of it was their own effort alone" isn't a stupid proposition, even though I don't see realistically how much data we could really generate to suppose a quantitative proposition. But it seems to me beyond obvious that Jeff Bezos, for example, made his fortune on account of the existence of mail service, the internet, the book vendors themselves that supported his early platform, as well as less structural elements which may include his family, friends, parents, teachers, etc etc. And yeah, it also took him doing what he did. How do you calculate all of that when trying to assess how much he rightfully 'owes' to society (I suppose in the form of income taxes)?

This topic is actually of great interest to me, because in a purely free market system the question of how much a person "deserves" all of his earnings isn't even a legitimate question. He acquires what he can get, and as long as its within the law it's legit. There are no questions beyond that of relevance. But I think most people recognize that there are relevant questions about that which go beyond "did he run his own business or not." You can look at South American countries and accuse them of failed socialism, but what I see is actually the opposite: rich elites and leaders who legally plunder most of what their countries have to offer and keep the poor street beggars down systemically. It's the corruption - probably technically legal but corrupt by decent standards - that drives them into the cesspool they find themselves in; the idea that "I'll get what I can and your situation is your problem." What I think works well in the U.S. is the fact that people have too much of a sense of freedom from oppression to tolerate that kind of thing, and if one went too far in the direction of plutocatic oligarchy you'd have armed rebellion. So the system of redistribution is set up just well enough that most people get at least what they need to get by, whether through welfare, food stamps, and whatever other programs. I know your position is to stop giving handouts and instead to bolster the economy, but mine is that leave those people to languish in the hopes that the system will take care of itself, and it'll be taken care of all right. I think the argument made by, for example Democrats, is that there is already a functional redistribution system, but it should be subject to tweaks to make it work better. Socialized health care is a big tweak but not a fundamental change in how the system generally works. Dunno if that's what AOC is talking about and I'm giving her maybe more credit than she deserves in plumbing out her argument, but as I think there is a topic here I'm making the argument.

Anyhow I know you disagree about this stuff but all this is to say that her statement is not stupid on its face, even though you may vehemently disagree with the policies she is endorsing by making the statement.
« Last Edit: February 06, 2020, 12:21:46 PM by Fenring »

ScottF

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: AOC is making a list? GOP will probably help her check it twice.
« Reply #10 on: February 06, 2020, 12:41:58 PM »
Assuming you're right that she's talking about billionaires and how they 'didn't really' earn their money, I have a hard time discounting the statement out of hand if what she means is "they didn't entirely earn it themselves." The 'not entirely' becomes a quantitative proposition, where perhaps we'd need to assess what amount of what was done was only possible on the work and sweat of others.

Won't speak for seriati, but I think that's the rub. Anyone with a brain knows there's an underlying infrastructure, people supporting it and a contributing "community" that is present within free-market success. From what I can tell, the AOC types skew to that being the primary reason billionaires succeed, not tertiary.

She makes it fairly obvious with lines like "you don't *make* a billion dollars, you *take* a billion dollars". As if the model (capital for value) was unfairly forced upon those unwitting dummies lining up to buy the next iphone. This is ironic because the very thing she'd propose to replace it actually *would require force to execute.


Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: AOC is making a list? GOP will probably help her check it twice.
« Reply #11 on: February 06, 2020, 02:11:39 PM »
Won't speak for seriati, but I think that's the rub. Anyone with a brain knows there's an underlying infrastructure, people supporting it and a contributing "community" that is present within free-market success. From what I can tell, the AOC types skew to that being the primary reason billionaires succeed, not tertiary.

Yeah, I see both positions on this kind of thing. I think a useful way to look at this in a microcosm would be to think of a small community, especially in the past prior to massive transportation and information infrastructure. You have a little town, each person does his trade, and ideally everyone survives in their local economy, with some trade going on with neighboring towns. I'm no historial of small-town economics but I have a pretty good hunch that what used to happen is everyone is going about their business, when eventually it becomes evident that a few members of the community are somehow able to buy the farm of their neighbor and grow, or are able to aqcuire someone else's land or business and become the de facto baron of the town eventually. How this happened was anyone's guess - resourcefulness? Shrewdness? Theft? No one would know, as they had no way to account for how some of them in the town would accumulate more than others, when everyone worked hard. Of course we know not everyone works as hard as everyone else, but this scenario is inevitable even when everyone works hard. Someone's crops are 'worth more' than another's due to scarcity or some other factor; someone's services are more in demand than another; the blacksmith has a war going on that gives him lots of work, which enables him to buy out the iron mine and run both sides of the operation; you get the picture. So due to no one in particular being the massively amazing entrepeneur we like to think of, inevitably some people rise higher than others in wealth and leverage that into being powerful business people. The farmer selling his corn at the same price he always did won't ever get there no matter how hard he works, despite the fact that if he decided to get out of the corn racket no one at all would have that essentail foodstuff. And yet that farmer learns that no matter how 'essential' his goods are for some reason they are not "worth" the same as someone else's product. He's just in a bad trade, it would seem. But doesn't someone have to do it, after all? So his public service will go largely unrewarded.

Now in a large economy there are many more opportunities for creativity and getting ahead in the market, but even if we imagine this teeny town as a thought experiment it should be clear that some people, perhaps due to nothing more than happenstance and luck, will end up the town's land barons while others remain poor. And this inequality will typically snowball into being dynastic - meaning the children inherit the wealth and grow it even more. It's no one's fault, per se, however the system will yield results like this. So the argument, I think, goes something like "Why does the blacksmith deserve more money than the farmer? Because a war he had nothing to do with gave him a boost that he himself did not generate?" Now this argument discounts advantages for himself that he may in fact have generated, so we would have to get into analyzing on a very small scale how much of someone's success is pure luck and how much luck he generated for himself. One theory of business success is that high risk / high reward strategy wins out over cautious business sense, which of course means that only a few people employing that strategy will shoot right to the top, while the rest fail miserably. How those few were selected from the many is anyone's guess, but "pure skill" would inevitably be both reductionist and I suspect in many cases flatly incorrect. In some cases it might very well be pure skill, mind you.

So when someone is making a redistributist argument, we need to be far more careful in our reasoning than to just throw out the usual "redistributing is stealing", or on the other side AOC's apparent "the rich owe it all to society." There are more factors in play and more to consider than "socialism vs evil capitalism."

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: AOC is making a list? GOP will probably help her check it twice.
« Reply #12 on: February 06, 2020, 02:48:37 PM »
Assuming you're right that she's talking about billionaires and how they 'didn't really' earn their money, I have a hard time discounting the statement out of hand if what she means is "they didn't entirely earn it themselves." The 'not entirely' becomes a quantitative proposition, where perhaps we'd need to assess what amount of what was done was only possible on the work and sweat of others.
Won't speak for seriati, but I think that's the rub. Anyone with a brain knows there's an underlying infrastructure, people supporting it and a contributing "community" that is present within free-market success. From what I can tell, the AOC types skew to that being the primary reason billionaires succeed, not tertiary.

What's also missing from AOC's version of the story is what we owe to the Billionaires for what they did to prop up that very community.  Not only did they pay the vast majority of the taxes to build the government system from their own profits, they also made the jobs that supported countless others and their tax payments, they correctly identified and implemented the products and services that would provide the most benefit to a huge number of additional people (something that Government has zero history of doing sucessfully), and they took the chances that had to be taken to get that benefit.

Claiming that Billionaires "took from society" is flipping reality on its head, Billionaires (and their historical equivalents) are the ones that drove society in the first place and paid to build it.

That's the problem with the "interconnection" analysis, if you apply it fairly it goes both ways.

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: AOC is making a list? GOP will probably help her check it twice.
« Reply #13 on: February 06, 2020, 02:59:14 PM »
So Seriati,

You think her comment is clearly being meant as a justification for [insert socialist policy here]? If so I can see how you'd disagree with her reasoning, but that's not the same as ridiculing her statement on its face.

Yes, she's saying it to support her socialist goals.  Yes, it's not the same as ridiculing her statement on its face.

So, you kind of demonstrated directly exactly what I meant when I said you need less context not more.  You're persuading yourself by spinning around a very simple point, with complexities that disguise it.
 
Quote
Assuming you're right that she's talking about billionaires and how they 'didn't really' earn their money, I have a hard time discounting the statement out of hand if what she means is "they didn't entirely earn it themselves." The 'not entirely' becomes a quantitative proposition, where perhaps we'd need to assess what amount of what was done was only possible on the work and sweat of others.

No.  You don't need a "quantitative" proposition to decide what percentage of what someone did is only because of others.  No more than we should all be in the Pro Football Hall of Fame because some portion of the success of everyone that's in there is ours.  No more than we should all get the credit for every purple heart or Congressional Medal of Honor because we somehow created the background that led to a specific person being willing to make specific sacrifices that earned those medals.

It's a false argument designed to sound plausible because it rests on a truism.

Are you willing to accept it in other contexts?  How much jail time are you willing to accept in respect of every murderer that killed others because they were ostracized, when it's your very society that ostracized them?  How long are you personally going to jail for not slamming the door on rape culture more forceably?  What personal punishment are you going to take on because our society has chosen not to interfere in other societies that oppress women or homosexuality?

Rather than make the nonsense argument that society owns x percentage of everyone (and for Billionaires, the left seems to think 95% societal ownership may be too low), why not admit that the benefits "paid into" a Billionaire by society are grossly less than those paid out by them to society?  in fact, all the Billionaire has actually accrued is a fraction of the net benefits they generated (by definition it can't be more than a fraction in a free market).

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: AOC is making a list? GOP will probably help her check it twice.
« Reply #14 on: February 06, 2020, 03:38:06 PM »
No.  You don't need a "quantitative" proposition to decide what percentage of what someone did is only because of others.  No more than we should all be in the Pro Football Hall of Fame because some portion of the success of everyone that's in there is ours.

I actually like where your mind is going with this analogy. I agree with the sense of it, and how you mean it, because in the football analogy we have a sport designed intentionally to be a winner/loser scenario where the greatest of us comes out as a champion winner who we will hold up and venerate as a prime specimen of effort and talent. And I like this analogy because I think this is the way many people see the business world, as a sort of arena where the greatest rise up and become champions, who have earned their glory, fame, and riches. And I am not at all ready to discount that some combination of incentive and reward is important in life; even veneration. Maybe that last above all. But I'm sure you, or most other people, would find it bizarre for someone as a football legend to be "rewarded" with tens of billions of dollars. Being the best is worth something, but how much? And when that translates in business to edging out the competition, are we as glad that the top dog "defeated" the competition? In real life losers actually suffer. It's not like going back to the coach and planning for next season. It would be more like a team losing the superbowl and the players have to go to McDonald's as a result. That would not be fun for the teams or the fans. We know they don't suffer too much by losing so we can root for the champ to win. Rooting for 2nd rung businesses to fail; that's a different type of thing. Most people would never think in this way, but by inference they end up doing just that whether they know it or not.

Quote
No more than we should all get the credit for every purple heart or Congressional Medal of Honor because we somehow created the background that led to a specific person being willing to make specific sacrifices that earned those medals.

This is an interesting analogy because here you are talking strictly about venerating a contribution without that contributing being linked to fame and fortune. Maybe fame in some rare cases, but usually not. Another interesting thing is that I suspect many medals are given out for effort and presence, not just mission success. Maybe a vet here can tell us the ratio, but I expect some medals are specially for "mission excellence" while others are for "bravery or courage" type thing. I would be curious to know how much of each there is there, but for 'courage and bravery' what we're talking about is guts and fortitude, not overcoming your fellow soldiers in some zero sum sense. On the contrary, bravery in the miliary is probably linked to supporting your fellow soldier as much as possible. This type of bravery, self-sacrifice to raise up the group, is almost equal and opposite to what happens in business, where although as you claim a tycoon may raise up the group, it is not an act of self-sacrifice but rather motivated by self-aggrandizement (doesn't have to be in a bad way). I don't think you will see anyone handed out medals for successfully getting everything they ever wanted, be it through hard work or otherwise. But in terms of guts and effort, I don't particularly believe that CEO's work 'harder' than people with two McDonald's type jobs to pay the rent, or single parents, or people who work in the Amazon warehouse. Sure, they earn exponentially more for their efforts, but they don't work harder, and are not braver in any intelligible sense I can make out. So on the 'purple heart' front I don't really see how a poor McDonald's employee is less deserving than a CEO. If you want to talk about society as a whole, there's much more self-sacrifice in contributing to the community when you don't expect to get that much back for it, often barely making rent. So in your analogy I give the purple heart to the poor dope who keeps it all going. But obviously some poor dopes do work harder and better than others, not that that means they'll get rich off it.

Quote
Are you willing to accept it in other contexts?  How much jail time are you willing to accept in respect of every murderer that killed others because they were ostracized, when it's your very society that ostracized them?

I am actually very happy with where this has gone, because this is an interesting and non-trivial question! This is *exactly* the kind of question that should be asked. In a scenario where someone is pushed and pushed and they break, how do we examine the systemic stresses that break them? Dunno if you've seen Falling Down (Michael Douglas), but that film is all about how if you chip away at people you end up breeding resentment in bits and pieces, and when they flip out you stand there wondering what happened. The notion that we're all "on our own" is not palatable for many or even most people, and I don't think deep down we really accept that all our mistakes are our own. We are *made to feel* that way, and the guilt is thrust on us for it, but I don't think most people truly accept that this is a right or fair analysis. Because it's not. But what is a right and fair way to see it? That's a big question, a whole life-sized debate of its own. But if society fails in some way, actually yeah, it should own that.

Les Miserables actually does tackle that question of how to inspect the culpability of a society in the wrongdoing or bad habits of some of its member, especially in the underclasses. Valjean specifically ends up in a situation where, due to no direct action of his own, a single mother is fired, and yet he cannot honestly pretend it had nothing to do with him. He takes *full responsibility* for her situation even though realistically at best he was only a small contributor to her situation. And based on what I would call a large sampling of empirical observation the general public seems largely to agree with his understanding and his choices. The question is what to do about it. Also a big topic.

That said I do agree with you that supporting each other is a two-way street, and that as much as billionaires make use of, they also create and contribute. I would never want to argue otherwise. Where some people see the line is that in a process of give and take, with CEO's and owners creating opportunities but also using infrastructure others have created, they reap the vast, vast majority of the reward. It's the quantities that are out of touch with reality, not the fact alone that they are remunerated for their contributions. I *definitely* think they should be rewarded.
« Last Edit: February 06, 2020, 03:48:42 PM by Fenring »

ScottF

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: AOC is making a list? GOP will probably help her check it twice.
« Reply #15 on: February 06, 2020, 03:40:37 PM »
Fenring, not to get too philosophical but we are wired to accept and take on as much responsibility as possible. It’s innate. No parent tells their child that the best way to act in the world is to avoid responsibility, lie, and try and take things from others. We're closest to our maximum potential when we take on increasing amounts of responsibility. Of course the weakest among us can’t take on as much (some can handle none) and we need to be compassionate about that.

Your hypothetical around potentially being able to pay for everything is too inextricably linked to how people actually flourish at scale. Doctrines like socialism/communism are designed specifically to de-emphasize responsibility and defer it to the parent or group collective. It’s not only the dispossessed that we need to care for now, but everybody. Any approach who's stated goal is to diminish responsibility leads to nihilism and, I believe, evil.

Edit: I realize I may be a bit cross-threaded here, losing track on where certain topics start/end
« Last Edit: February 06, 2020, 03:43:28 PM by ScottF »

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: AOC is making a list? GOP will probably help her check it twice.
« Reply #16 on: February 06, 2020, 03:54:45 PM »
Any approach who's stated goal is to diminish responsibility leads to nihilism and, I believe, evil.

Agreed. What I am actually pushing back against is the "not my fault, not my problem" mentality, which seems to permeate the system more often than not. Taking on more responsibility goes hand in hand with taking on more of a sense that you are serving the good through your actions. Responsibility too often is taken to mean "I'm in charge, and I get what I want." People think it means being royalty or something. Whereas what it actually means is you have to own the situation, the whole situation, including culpability, including what you owe back, everything. But when it's framed only as "I built this, so it's mine" we have a short circuit that cuts most of what is actually happening out of the equation.

Crunch

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: AOC is making a list? GOP will probably help her check it twice.
« Reply #17 on: February 09, 2020, 08:30:45 AM »
You know, Crunch, it is entirely possible to make the remark she made and mean by it something like "No one lifts themselves up by only their only powers. No one." And I would say the same if asked. Anyone who thinks they did it all themselves is delusional on such a scale that they don't know a windmill from a cyclops. So maybe she meant that? We'd need the context, I suppose. I guess it's also possible that she literally doesn't understand what the bootstrap metaphor is supposed to mean, but it seems to me that's the less likely option.

How about her recent video (yesterday) where she talks about that great economist Milton Keynes? For someone who allegedly has an economics degree and knows so much about how to run an economy, it seems pretty incredible she can’t get his name right. She says she was literally just reading something by him that morning, so it was fresh in her mind.

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: AOC is making a list? GOP will probably help her check it twice.
« Reply #18 on: February 09, 2020, 05:54:05 PM »
Any approach who's stated goal is to diminish responsibility leads to nihilism and, I believe, evil.

Agreed. What I am actually pushing back against is the "not my fault, not my problem" mentality, which seems to permeate the system more often than not. Taking on more responsibility goes hand in hand with taking on more of a sense that you are serving the good through your actions.

Funny thing about this when you think about charitable donation behaviors between Conservatives and Liberals on this front. It seems to me that so-called Liberals are the bigger offenders in regards to "not my problem" thinking--because the Government is supposed to handle it.

Quote
Responsibility too often is taken to mean "I'm in charge, and I get what I want."  People think it means being royalty or something.

Not really going to address this directly, left for context.
Quote
Whereas what it actually means is you have to own the situation, the whole situation, including culpability, including what you owe back, everything. But when it's framed only as "I built this, so it's mine" we have a short circuit that cuts most of what is actually happening out of the equation.

Responsibility doesn't require taking ownership of the whole situation, including culpability. Responsibility simply requires you to take ownership of your own role in being part of a solution. Everyone doing a little can accomplish a lot.

The problem is the "Liberals" like to think the best mechanism for everyone to do a little is by having government take from some to distribute to others. Even worse, they see no need for those being helped to take any ownership over their situation as well. It actually is the antithesis of "everyone doing a little." Instead it's the "wealthy" do a lot, and the "poor" need do nothing--because it's not their fault, and thus no need to "own it."
« Last Edit: February 09, 2020, 05:56:07 PM by TheDeamon »