Organizational Responsibility

[thegreekdog]

So the question has come up in two forms. How much blame or responsibility should members of an organization have for the activities of that organization or the leaders of the organization? This has come up in the context of two items:

(1) The Catholic Church and its protection of accused pedophiles and whether parishoners should be responsible for this activity or should carry some of the blame.

(2) The US federal government and its killing of innocent civilians through drone strikes and whether US citizens and/or supporters of the current or two prior administrations should be responsible for this activitiy or should carry some of the blame.

I think there some factors that go into the assignment of blame or responsibility. I'll list two of them here (off the top of my head, so don't hold it against me if I miss something):

- Relative effect the members have on leadership or the organization itself. Can Catholic parishoners influence the Church? Can citizens of the United States influence the federal government? To what extent can they influence or change the organization or its leaders?

- Consequences to the members of the organization for activities of dissent. What is the consequence to Catholic parishoners if they stop attending mass or stop tithing? What is the consequence to citizens of the United States if they protest or stop paying taxes or vote for someone else?

- Does your opinion of the members of a particular organization change if you know that the members have been attempting and continue to attempt to remedy the problem? Do you have less anger towards Catholic parishoners if they make demands of the church? Do you have less contempt for American citizens if they vote for someone who would not use drone strikes or protest the use of drones?

EDIT (forgot one)

[2dimes]

How did we get to a point where leaders are separate from an organization?

What is an organization if the leaders are removed?

Finally why have any known guilty leaders been defended or hidden?

[thegreekdog]

How did we get to a point where leaders are separate from an organization?

What is an organization if the leaders are removed?

Finally why have any known guilty leaders been defended or hidden?

I'm not sure leaders are separate from the organization.
Leaders of an organization can be replaced.
Guilty leaders tend to be defended or hidden by other leaders.

[patches70]

I'm not sure leaders are separate from the organization.
Leaders of an organization can be replaced.
Guilty leaders tend to be defended or hidden by other leaders.

Like the LAPD?
Like Congress?
Like Presidential Appointees?
Like (rogue) Wall Street Financial Firms?
Like Union Bosses?
Like State Governors?
Like city Mayors?

Instead of blaming the organizations, shouldn't the corrupt offenders simply be driven out?
Or better yet, why not limit the ability and power of said organizations so that it's impossible for corruption to be shielded?

It's always "If only we could find the right person" as the excuse why those who have power abuse said power instead of "why should they have such power in the first place?".

Forget organizational responsibility, focus on individual responsibility IMO. Organizational responsibility only cedes individual responsibility to an abstract.

[thegreekdog]

I'm not sure leaders are separate from the organization.
Leaders of an organization can be replaced.
Guilty leaders tend to be defended or hidden by other leaders.

Like the LAPD?
Like Congress?
Like Presidential Appointees?
Like (rogue) Wall Street Financial Firms?
Like Union Bosses?
Like State Governors?
Like city Mayors?

Instead of blaming the organizations, shouldn't the corrupt offenders simply be driven out?
Or better yet, why not limit the ability and power of said organizations so that it's impossible for corruption to be shielded?

It's always "If only we could find the right person" as the excuse why those who have power abuse said power instead of "why should they have such power in the first place?".

Forget organizational responsibility, focus on individual responsibility IMO. Organizational responsibility only cedes individual responsibility to an abstract.

I don't disagree with this in principal, but the question is not "should" people in the organization take individual responsibility. The question is whether they are able to take individual responsiblity and change the organization.

For example, I do not agree with drone strikes. I should take individual responsibility, but what can I do? I could protest, but that would be ineffective. I could vote, but that was ultimately ineffective. Do you expect me to violently rebel?

[AndyDufresne]

TGD, lets whip up some lawsuits with your laywering. I'll go do something that could be seen as an "imminent threat" and then when it obviously isn't the case at all, through the magic of illusions, we can make our case.


--Andy

[patches70]

I don't disagree with this in principal, but the question is not "should" people in the organization take individual responsibility. The question is whether they are able to take individual responsiblity and change the organization.

For example, I do not agree with drone strikes. I should take individual responsibility, but what can I do? I could protest, but that would be ineffective. I could vote, but that was ultimately ineffective. Do you expect me to violently rebel?

The drone strikes are legal, haven't you read the DOJ's memos? Heh heh, why would you protest anything that was legal?

Didn't this thread get started as a result of the actions of individuals committing actual crimes and the assertion made by some that these organizations were protecting the crime doers?

The government drone bombing "terrorists" is not illegal. Thus, no one is responsible for anything illegal.

That's a problem with collectivism, it removes all individual responsibility and gives it to the group (organization). You as an individual railing against it is like trying to stop the wind. By attempting to impose your individual "responsibility" you are subverting the group, a cardinal sin. Who are you to decide?

Now, if you were a drone operator and you knew that if you pushed that button and if even a single non terrorists was harmed, then you'd be personally responsible and held accountable (by being tossed straight into prison) then you can bet you won't push that button unless you were absolutely sure that either-
1. It's only legitimate targets
2. Someone in a position of authority above you will protect you from any legal repercussions.

Whether or not you can sleep at night knowing you just blew up a bunch of women and children is beside the point.

By us giving power to the group that we did not possess as individuals we have created a moral quandary, have we not? There is no easy way out of this quandary either.
Acting within legal means will not work.
Acting within violent means merely strengthens the resolve and consolidates the power of the collective.

The answer is simple actually, but unpleasant. The collective will collapse on it's own, eventually. You as an individual can choose to hasten that collapse, by doing things that would be considered non violent (but those things in reality are forms of violence), such as not paying taxes. Stop participating or even massively increasing participation (as in sucking up resources from the collective that you did not otherwise need) and other types of fraud. Fraud is a type of violence, just ask Dante.
But it's probably best for yourself to just not be in the way of the collapsing rubble.

Of course, disobeying the collective brands you immediately as a criminal.

That's why no organization, be it private or government, should have any rights that any individual does not have. Remember, those drone bombings are done in your name, for your benefit, so the story goes. Whether or not you agree does not matter.

So, it all depends on the individual to do what they think is right. Mind you, any action that is even perceived as violent will be met with a far greater proportion of violence in return from the collective.
It reminds me of the famous experiment with the gorillas in a cage, a fire hose, step ladder and a banana.

It's a hell of a thing, and for my part, I hold the individuals responsible for their actions. I can't do anything about it, but if the day comes when those individuals appeal to me for assistance they will find that assistance lacking.

[thegreekdog]

I think there is a rather stark difference between a drone operator and a US citizen-civilian. The former is directly engaged in the legal, but despicable, activity. The latter is indirectly supporting the legal, but despicable, activity. The former is not likely to protest or disobey. The latter is more likely to do both of those things.

[nietzsche]

I think the responsibility is strongest for those who provide the money for the organization's operations.

If US citizens wanted to demand something from their government, with the help of the social networks they could organize and not pay taxes for, say one week, to show the muscle.

Just something that occurred to me in this moment, I know someone will prove me wrong soon.

[BigBallinStalin]

I think the responsibility is strongest for those who provide the money for the organization's operations.

If US citizens wanted to demand something from their government, with the help of the social networks they could organize and not pay taxes for, say one week, to show the muscle.

Just something that occurred to me in this moment, I know someone will prove me wrong soon.

Since taxation is an involuntary exchange, I doubt people will respond the right incentives to revolt. The IRS, the contracted collection agencies, and ultimately the police provide the 'right' incentives for you and I to keep paying taxes. Also, those who earn the most have the most to lose too.

[tzor]

So the question has come up in two forms. How much blame or responsibility should members of an organization have for the activities of that organization or the leaders of the organization? This has come up in the context of two items:

(1) The Catholic Church and its protection of accused pedophiles and whether parishoners should be responsible for this activity or should carry some of the blame.

(2) The US federal government and its killing of innocent civilians through drone strikes and whether US citizens and/or supporters of the current or two prior administrations should be responsible for this activity or should carry some of the blame.

I think number one and number two are completely different problems.

If we just consider the specific point in point one and ignore the broader issues, there is a tendency for all organizations to "protect" their own members. Whether this "fraternal protection" is a good or a bad thing depends on the level of the protection. When it crosses the line into a cover up it is clearly a violation in terms of the law. You need a third party to investigate these issues.

The whole pedophile problem is normally linked with the Catholic Church, but in fact the repercussions are everywhere. They include public schools and sporting events (if you have a girl or boy in track and you have to take them someplace for a major event, you need adults in groups of two now) to any organization that has kids and adults together without parent supervision.

Number two is a pile of horse manure. I'm sorry for being so blunt about it but war is hell and defense is never perfect. If you want a better example for your use consider that in the case of the recent cop who went rogue, in defending his potential targets, many innocent civilians have been shot by the police. link to my favorite site - which some of you hate - Godfather Politics

Los Angeles officers guarding a ‘target’ named in the posting shot and wounded multiple people in Torrance who were in a pickup but were not involved, authorities said. The extent of their injuries was not released. It’s not clear if the target is a person or a location. The Daily Breeze in Torrance also reports (http://bit.ly/YWhBLi) that there was another police shooting nearby involving another pickup truck, but the driver wasn’t hurt. ‘We’re asking our officers to be extraordinarily cautious just as we’re asking the public to be extraordinarily cautious with this guy. He’s already demonstrated he has a propensity for shooting innocent people,’ said LAPD Cmdr. Andrew Smith.

Two innocent bystanders were caught up Thursday in the search for Dorner. At 5:15 a.m., LAPD officers had a report of a pickup truck matching the description of Dorner's driving with its lights off in Torrance, near one of the primary protection targets.

Officers spotted the truck and fired on the vehicle hitting the people inside, who turned out to be female newspaper carriers.

Both were transported to hospital. One has a minor gunshot wound and is being released. The second had two gunshot wounds and is in stable condition.

"Tragically, we believe this was a case of mistaken identity by the officers," Beck said.

One could go "ballistic" on these officers, but given the current circumstances, I'm not going to rush to judgement. The idea that you can have a clean war when your opponent is playing dirty is nonsense. Ideally you try to avoid these problems but you also don't want to get your own men killed in the process.

[Timminz]

What can members of these organizations do? Well, ideally they could leave the organization. Stop being affiliated with them. Stop giving them money.

That is what Catholics should be doing.

The situation is quite different with governmental organizations. I guess they could leave the country. Better yet, try to get a third party candidate elected. Not just vote for them, but give their campaigns your time and money. You should have extra of both after you disown the Catholic church.

[TA1LGUNN3R]

For example, I do not agree with drone strikes. I should take individual responsibility, but what can I do? I could protest, but that would be ineffective. I could vote, but that was ultimately ineffective. Do you expect me to violently rebel?

This pretty much sums it up. You can't do much, and voting in a third party that'll end military atrocities isn't likely. Probably the most effective means of 'taking the responsibility' is just to jump ship and move to another country, but (1) it's likely that whatever country you go to is also involved in actions which you may consider immoral as well, and they wouldn't really give a shit if you think so, and (2) it's a bit silly to expect that you should have to give up your home and expatriate yourself just to protest something like drone strikes. I don't vote so that I can't be blamed for contributing, and I wouldn't pay taxes either except for the threat of force.

The best you can do then is to live in an area that, if retribution from pissed off countries leads to war, nobody cares about and they won't drop a nuke on you. Scramble if they do.

As for something like the Church... well, if you know that your contributions are being used for pedo protection then you should quit. If you think your Church isn't involved then don't worry about it.

-TG

[jonesthecurl]

What can members of these organizations do? Well, ideally they could leave the organization. Stop being affiliated with them. Stop giving them money.

That is what Catholics should be doing.

The situation is quite different with governmental organizations. I guess they could leave the country. Better yet, try to get a third party candidate elected. Not just vote for them, but give their campaigns your time and money. You should have extra of both after you disown the Catholic church.

I think you can be Catholic and disagree with the church, some of its officials and even the Pope. The most immediate example that comes to mind is Francis of Assissi.

Not that I'm a Catholic myself, even a lapsed one, but I can see how disagreeing with officials and their actions could make one angry without leading to a break from what one believes wholeheartedly to be the only way into heaven.

And please, disgruntled Catholics, don't split from the Church and set up yet another Christian sect for us to argue with!

[nietzsche]

I think the responsibility is strongest for those who provide the money for the organization's operations.

If US citizens wanted to demand something from their government, with the help of the social networks they could organize and not pay taxes for, say one week, to show the muscle.

Just something that occurred to me in this moment, I know someone will prove me wrong soon.

Since taxation is an involuntary exchange, I doubt people will respond the right incentives to revolt. The IRS, the contracted collection agencies, and ultimately the police provide the 'right' incentives for you and I to keep paying taxes. Also, those who earn the most have the most to lose too.

I'm talking something big. Social networks can do that. Imagine half a state decides he's not gonna take it anymore and decide to boycott some taxes for a little while... but normally parties can sense the people and act before hand, which then indicates power is still on the people, we, maybe, don't liket to take responsibility and like being victims. Perhaps. I'm talking out of my ass here, don't know much, just theoritizing.