Citizens and Government - Responsibility (new poll!)

[Lootifer]

Yeah but its not like you're bearing the burden of your leaders dumb decisions. You just ever so slightly assisted them.

Basically you are choosing a convienent irrational decision over and above the pious, rational and incredibly inconvienent. Same reason people buy McDonalds. Its not good food, it makes you fat, and isnt really that cheap. But it is easy. And generally the human race is pretty lazy.

[mrswdk]

I don't buy McDonald's.

Just as people who buy my McDonald's are choosing the convenient option and incurring a negative impact on their health as a result, people who fund a naughty government are choosing the convenient option and funding bad acts in the process.

Just because it's inconvenient to avoid supporting something doesn't mean you are instantly absolved of personal responsibility if you support it.

[Lootifer]

I wasnt saying you were. I was simply saying that lounging in your ivory tower and calling all us sheeple, sheeple, isnt particularly insulting nor useful

[patches70]

I'm just asking a question here, so don't go all blowing off the top.

If average citizens are responsible for what the government does (because the citizens pay taxes, live there or whatever), and the government engages in certain activities, then the citizens can be held responsible, right?

Take for instance drone bombings in Pakistan, which a large number of tax paying American citizens are quite obvious against. A drone bomb kills a suspected terrorist (because the target was age 16 or older and male) and just happens to blow up a mother, her infant baby and her six year old daughter.
The husband reacts violently, understandably. He goes out and kills an American family of tourists. Now since the USG is responsible for the deaths of those civilians, the tourist family is also responsible for killing those civilians.
Is it not right to go after those responsible for crimes such as unwarranted killing of innocents?
And if every American citizen is responsible for every innocent life killed by the drone attacks, have we the right to retaliate when people seek (I suppose the word would be Justice?) justice? And if that justice takes the form of "an eye for an eye" is justice served by the murder of those American tourists?

If not, but American citizens are also responsible for government actions, why isn't justice served?

[notyou2]

My brain hurts and I am holding BBS responsible.

Prepare to be sued.

TGD, unleash the attorneys.

[AndyDufresne]

My brain hurts and I am holding BBS responsible.

Prepare to be sued.

TGD, unleash the attorneys.

--Andy

[BigBallinStalin]

There is a difference due to the nature of the exchange. If I pay for someone to kill someone else, then sure I'm responsible for the victim's death. If person X forces me to pay, then he deprives me of my use rights over my money; therefore, I can't be held responsible for a latter decision over which I had no control over (exception: unless one adheres to some moral claim where one must resist such coercion in any circumstances). This exception doesn't hold from my perspective since I adhere to a more practical moral claim: one should fight battles they can win.

Your moral view of the situation is logically disconnected from whether or not you are responsible for the action taken. Under your moral worldview, one can be exonerated for the action on an individual level and still be responsible for the action.

How does that follow? I've read the remainder, and it doesn't explain my question.

To be clear, I'm not morally obligated to help others--if I was, that would be a moral claim enslaving one's services and goods for the use of others. I'm more of a negative freedoms kinda guy, so I don't see how I'm responsible for the consequences of someone who has denied my control over my goods. If you don't have autonomy over a decision, then you can't be held responsible for the consequences.

You have control over your goods. You've just chosen not to exercise that control because the immediate resulting consequences are unacceptable to you.

Really? If a gang of thieves break into your house, tie you down, and start banging your wife and pets, I wouldn't say you exercise control over the situation (goods and partner included). Even if that consequence were to be inevitable and is about to occur, then the lack of autonomy still applies. If not, then we can say ridiculous things like the slaves were responsible for remaining enslaved, being captured, not resisting, etc. Furthermore, any action of the slaveowner is the responsibility of the slave, so the slaves were responsible for all the casualties of the Civil War, for the enslavement of other slaves (domestic and abroad), for setting back modern day African-Americans (thus, some portion of reparations should be paid by current African-Americans), etc.

But, this way of thinking isn't productive. I'd say the responsibility of those consequences lies with the slave masters and traders. Makes sense.

The main point of this issue is that responsibility does involve a moral obligation toward others, but that obligation doesn't need to hold.

[BigBallinStalin]

If you know full well that an organization will use your money to do naughty things, and you continue to give it your money, then you are knowingly contributing to those naughty things and are therefore complicit.

The 'robber' analogy is bogus because taxation is not a 'your money or your life' situation.

Sure, it is. If you refuse to pay your taxes, you get fined and/or jailed. If you refuse to pay your fines and/or serve your time in a cage, then they'll visit your house with guns. If you refuse to submit by choosing to defend yourself, then they'll kill you.

If you want to stop paying tax to the American government then you can leave the country. If you choose to remain in the country and paying tax to the government then you are choosing to fund whatever the government is doing.

Simply because that option exists, it doesn't follow that taxation is somehow voluntary.

If you do wish to use that argument, then you can justify anything done by the state as voluntary and conclude that the victims of that state voluntarily chose to fund such activities.

You're not distinguishing between voluntary and involuntary exchange.

[Lootifer]

I'm just asking a question here, so don't go all blowing off the top.

If average citizens are responsible for what the government does (because the citizens pay taxes, live there or whatever), and the government engages in certain activities, then the citizens can be held responsible, right?

Take for instance drone bombings in Pakistan, which a large number of tax paying American citizens are quite obvious against. A drone bomb kills a suspected terrorist (because the target was age 16 or older and male) and just happens to blow up a mother, her infant baby and her six year old daughter.
The husband reacts violently, understandably. He goes out and kills an American family of tourists. Now since the USG is responsible for the deaths of those civilians, the tourist family is also responsible for killing those civilians.
Is it not right to go after those responsible for crimes such as unwarranted killing of innocents?
And if every American citizen is responsible for every innocent life killed by the drone attacks, have we the right to retaliate when people seek (I suppose the word would be Justice?) justice? And if that justice takes the form of "an eye for an eye" is justice served by the murder of those American tourists?

If not, but American citizens are also responsible for government actions, why isn't justice served?

In a vacuum justice is served.

However justice is a morally subjective thing. While those tourists are somewhat responsible for USG drone attacks their responsability is very limited and who knows, they could have been anti-drone attack activists doing everything within their power to stop the drone attacks (which is likely a more pro-pakistan-civilian than simply leaving the states, giving up your citizenship and stopping all your tax payments). I doubt that the "justice bringing" in this circumstance would have bothered to evaluate the relative responsabilities or what is best for pakistan in this case.

[thegreekdog]

There is a difference due to the nature of the exchange. If I pay for someone to kill someone else, then sure I'm responsible for the victim's death. If person X forces me to pay, then he deprives me of my use rights over my money; therefore, I can't be held responsible for a latter decision over which I had no control over (exception: unless one adheres to some moral claim where one must resist such coercion in any circumstances). This exception doesn't hold from my perspective since I adhere to a more practical moral claim: one should fight battles they can win.

Your moral view of the situation is logically disconnected from whether or not you are responsible for the action taken. Under your moral worldview, one can be exonerated for the action on an individual level and still be responsible for the action.

How does that follow? I've read the remainder, and it doesn't explain my question.

To be clear, I'm not morally obligated to help others--if I was, that would be a moral claim enslaving one's services and goods for the use of others. I'm more of a negative freedoms kinda guy, so I don't see how I'm responsible for the consequences of someone who has denied my control over my goods. If you don't have autonomy over a decision, then you can't be held responsible for the consequences.

You have control over your goods. You've just chosen not to exercise that control because the immediate resulting consequences are unacceptable to you.

Really? If a gang of thieves break into your house, tie you down, and start banging your wife and pets, I wouldn't say you exercise control over the situation (goods and partner included). Even if that consequence were to be inevitable and is about to occur, then the lack of autonomy still applies. If not, then we can say ridiculous things like the slaves were responsible for remaining enslaved, being captured, not resisting, etc. Furthermore, any action of the slaveowner is the responsibility of the slave, so the slaves were responsible for all the casualties of the Civil War, for the enslavement of other slaves (domestic and abroad), for setting back modern day African-Americans (thus, some portion of reparations should be paid by current African-Americans), etc.

But, this way of thinking isn't productive. I'd say the responsibility of those consequences lies with the slave masters and traders. Makes sense.

The main point of this issue is that responsibility does involve a moral obligation toward others, but that obligation doesn't need to hold.

In the "gang of thieves ties me down" analogy (or even the guy robs me) the choices are "be robbed" or "die and be robbed" so not much of a choice.

You don't need to feel morally responsible or feel badly or whatever. Again, I think you're confusing "being responsible" for "feeling upset about the situation." I am partially responsible for drones killing civilians in "Brown Country X" but I'm not going to feel really badly about it because the alternative is that I go to jail (and my stuff gets taken anyway - which, by the way, should have been your argument from the beginning - no matter what I do, my money still goes to the government).

[BigBallinStalin]

Oh, that last part is a good point. We're using different definitions of responsibility here; I keep saying, it's tied to an obligation, which is based on some moral claim, so it's a debate on moral philosophy. Nothing much about 'feeling upset'.

[thegreekdog]

Oh, that last part is a good point. We're using different definitions of responsibility here; I keep saying, it's tied to an obligation, which is based on some moral claim, so it's a debate on moral philosophy. Nothing much about 'feeling upset'.

So let's get back to the specific issue: Are you (BBS) as a taxpayer and citizen of the United States responsible (even just a tiny bit) for the actions of your government?

I say yes because you are.
You say no because you don't have a moral obligation.
I say moral obligations have nothing to do with whether your actions are responsible for the actions of your government.

[Phatscotty]

throw in if one does not vote....even more yes.

Complicit

[mrswdk]

If you know full well that an organization will use your money to do naughty things, and you continue to give it your money, then you are knowingly contributing to those naughty things and are therefore complicit.

The 'robber' analogy is bogus because taxation is not a 'your money or your life' situation.

Sure, it is. If you refuse to pay your taxes, you get fined and/or jailed. If you refuse to pay your fines and/or serve your time in a cage, then they'll visit your house with guns. If you refuse to submit by choosing to defend yourself, then they'll kill you.

If you want to stop paying tax to the American government then you can leave the country. If you choose to remain in the country and paying tax to the government then you are choosing to fund whatever the government is doing.

Simply because that option exists, it doesn't follow that taxation is somehow voluntary.

If you do wish to use that argument, then you can justify anything done by the state as voluntary and conclude that the victims of that state voluntarily chose to fund such activities.

You're not distinguishing between voluntary and involuntary exchange.

I thought we were talking about the US, not North Korea.

a) If the chain of events you outline happens then the government will not 'kill you'.

b) Leaving the country is perfectly possible, and if you cared that much about what the government does with your tax revenue then it is an option you could take. During my undergrad I had an Am*rican professor who left the US in the 60s/70s to avoid the Vietnam draft.

Staying in the US means you have weighed up the pros and cons, and you have decided that the pros of staying in the US and paying tax to the US government outweigh the cons of leaving. You have made a perfectly free choice.

[Gillipig]

We elected them. They're our representatives, we can't take credit for some of the things they do and then cop out and not take responsibility for others. It's a package deal. NASA and NSA are two sides of the same coin, if you want to bask in the glory of one of them you also have to be ashamed of the actions of the other.

[BigBallinStalin]

Oh, that last part is a good point. We're using different definitions of responsibility here; I keep saying, it's tied to an obligation, which is based on some moral claim, so it's a debate on moral philosophy. Nothing much about 'feeling upset'.

So let's get back to the specific issue: Are you (BBS) as a taxpayer and citizen of the United States responsible (even just a tiny bit) for the actions of your government?

I say yes because you are.
You say no because you don't have a moral obligation.
I say moral obligations have nothing to do with whether your actions are responsible for the actions of your government.

Because... 'responsibility' to you means have some causal impact on a later series of events during which you do not exercise discretion, right?

[BigBallinStalin]

If you know full well that an organization will use your money to do naughty things, and you continue to give it your money, then you are knowingly contributing to those naughty things and are therefore complicit.

The 'robber' analogy is bogus because taxation is not a 'your money or your life' situation.

Sure, it is. If you refuse to pay your taxes, you get fined and/or jailed. If you refuse to pay your fines and/or serve your time in a cage, then they'll visit your house with guns. If you refuse to submit by choosing to defend yourself, then they'll kill you.

If you want to stop paying tax to the American government then you can leave the country. If you choose to remain in the country and paying tax to the government then you are choosing to fund whatever the government is doing.

Simply because that option exists, it doesn't follow that taxation is somehow voluntary.

If you do wish to use that argument, then you can justify anything done by the state as voluntary and conclude that the victims of that state voluntarily chose to fund such activities.

You're not distinguishing between voluntary and involuntary exchange.

I thought we were talking about the US, not North Korea.

a) If the chain of events you outline happens then the government will not 'kill you'.

Sure, they will. Try refusing to pay your taxes, refusing the court sentence, and refusing to let them enter your home. Violence on their part is required to force you to comply, hence taxation is an involuntary exchange.

b) Leaving the country is perfectly possible, and if you cared that much about what the government does with your tax revenue then it is an option you could take. During my undergrad I had an Am*rican professor who left the US in the 60s/70s to avoid the Vietnam draft.

Staying in the US means you have weighed up the pros and cons, and you have decided that the pros of staying in the US and paying tax to the US government outweigh the cons of leaving. You have made a perfectly free choice.

Sure, I've chosen to stay. It doesn't follow that I've voluntarily chosen to pay taxes. Again, 'voluntary' exchange doesn't follow from having the option to leave. To repeat: [insert reductio ad absurdum]. Someone breaks into your home and offers you a choice, "either pay me, or leave your home, and I'll take some of your stuff anyway." That's not a voluntary exchange.

The problem that most people have in accepting this occurs whenever their beliefs tied to a government become challenged. Somehow, government is a holy covenant between the people and the authorities--it's a very similar belief to what people had about Lords and Kings back in the day.

To be clear, I'm not denying that people make a tradeoff between two states of life (e.g. leaving country X + incurring additional costs and benefits v. staying in country X + incurring additional costs and benefits); however, given this tradeoff, you'd have to explain how taxation from government/the Mafia somehow becomes a voluntary exchange.

[AndyDufresne]

... NASA and NSA ...

It is amazing how one little 'A' makes such a difference!


--Andy

[Metsfanmax]

... NASA and NSA ...

It is amazing how one little 'A' makes such a difference!


--Andy

Nah, they're both spying on us.

[thegreekdog]

Oh, that last part is a good point. We're using different definitions of responsibility here; I keep saying, it's tied to an obligation, which is based on some moral claim, so it's a debate on moral philosophy. Nothing much about 'feeling upset'.

So let's get back to the specific issue: Are you (BBS) as a taxpayer and citizen of the United States responsible (even just a tiny bit) for the actions of your government?

I say yes because you are.
You say no because you don't have a moral obligation.
I say moral obligations have nothing to do with whether your actions are responsible for the actions of your government.

Because... 'responsibility' to you means have some causal impact on a later series of events during which you do not exercise discretion, right?

Yes. To you "responsibility" means primary responsibility (for some reason).

[BigBallinStalin]

Cuz it's a standard definition of responsibility:

1.
the state or fact of having a duty to deal with something (BBS) or of having control over someone.



responsibility:
: the state of being the person who caused something to happen (TGD's, but this is indirect cause)

: a duty or task that you are required or expected to do (BBS)

: something that you should do because it is morally right, legally required, etc. (BBS)


So, enough with the causal definition because that's not useful. Do you agree that citizens aren't responsible for the acts of the State--in the above BBS-approved definitions?

[Metsfanmax]

BBS, if you elect a representative that engages in a terrorist activity, using your tax dollars, do you feel a duty to deal with that by voting that person out of office?

[mrswdk]

You know that a condition of living in Am*rica is paying tax to the Am*rican government. You choose to stay in Am*rica knowing this. If at any point you grow tired of this arrangement then you can take steps to address it.

Like, do you complain when your internet provider says they'll take away your internet unless you keep paying them? 'They are FORCING me to keep giving them money!' No. You chose their service and you knew that to keep getting the same service you would have to keep paying. The trade-offs in this scenario are more trivial but the principal is the exact same.

[patches70]

Hey, BBS, apparently you are responsible for the killing of these 15 people who were on the way to a wedding. They were mistaken for an Al Qadea convoy.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/12/ ... 0O20131212

Since you are responsible, BBS, (and you as well TGD, Mets), how do you feel about being guilty of murdering 15 innocent people?

Personally, if you all are responsible for those deaths then every last one of you ought to be tossed straight in jail. TGD, you are a lawyer, what's the penalty for 15 counts of negligent homicide? Since you are responsible, and being responsible means you have to face the consequences of your actions, then that's what you should be facing. Now if you are responsible but can't be held accountable, then you aren't really responsible, are you?

Actually, what I should really ask, if you are responsible for those deaths, why shouldn't you be charged with a crime, sued via civil court or face retaliatory action from the relatives and/or the Yemeni government?
That is, if you are responsible, would it be fair of Yemen to fly a drone over your house and bomb it killing you, your family and whomever else may be in the house with you?

If not, why?

[Gillipig]

Hey, BBS, apparently you are responsible for the killing of these 15 people who were on the way to a wedding. They were mistaken for an Al Qadea convoy.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/12/ ... 0O20131212

Since you are responsible, BBS, (and you as well TGD, Mets), how do you feel about being guilty of murdering 15 innocent people?

Personally, if you all are responsible for those deaths then every last one of you ought to be tossed straight in jail. TGD, you are a lawyer, what's the penalty for 15 counts of negligent homicide? Since you are responsible, and being responsible means you have to face the consequences of your actions, then that's what you should be facing. Now if you are responsible but can't be held accountable, then you aren't really responsible, are you?

Actually, what I should really ask, if you are responsible for those deaths, why shouldn't you be charged with a crime, sued via civil court or face retaliatory action from the relatives and/or the Yemeni government?
That is, if you are responsible, would it be fair of Yemen to fly a drone over your house and bomb it killing you, your family and whomever else may be in the house with you?

If not, why?

Because the entire country is responsible you dumbass. You can't throw everyone in jail no matter what they have collectively done. And then there's the technicality, there would be no judge to pass the sentence, because they would all be guilty of whatever crime the US army did as well.