| richardhutnik said: There is a long chain of linking interdependencies in a modern society, which prevent people from seeing the direct result of their actions and inactions, in the big scheme of things. Therefore, the end result is that people won't do what is needed to make changes, as you have stated. And this needed responsibility isn't just that people take care of themselves either. There is a case of being a good neighbor also, and taking care of those in need. 1) Again, I go back to what Is said, and why I believe libertarians have it backwards. While it is true that government can make things worse, it is more true that we have more government, because people fail to take care of problems without government. Consider the BP oil spill for example. Please remind me exactly what part of the government causes the spill to happen. Was there regulations on the part of government that made them mess up like that? Show me where. But, guess what happens next? Well, the spill will wipe people out, and their livelihoods. Just like with Katrina, they are facing a disaster that will change their lives. I guess you say sue them, and make BP pay for everyone. BUT, what happens when the end result is the company can't pay? I guess life is hard, and you see, people should of known. Why have government in here? 2) And the banking industry being idiots, and also corporations who decide they can outsource and layoff Americans in large numbers, causing people to not pay their student loans? Well, I guess it is the fault of people who took those loans out, and their fault for trusting what they were told by industries as to where the jobs would be. In short, everyone is to blame for everything that goes wrong in their life, including people who made their livelihoods in New Orleans. That is how the game works. Anyhow, I will say it is backwards. Want less government? Well, then do more NOW, and then argue the case it is superior to people. Prevent problems from popping up to begin with. Self-organize and do it. As of now, as a person who is getting money from family, I am out of the system, and really don't care what they do. I have no vested interest in more or less government, because I am on less than a shoe string here, and just trying to survive, without help from anyone (outside of family) to ANY degree at all, to get ahead. That is life. I certain see no reason to vote this election either. |
1) Considering that oil companies are blocked from drilling in the safer shallow waters, and are instead pushed out to sea in deeper and more dangerous deep water? Yes, government regulation did seem to have played a role here. Drilling in 5000 ft of water is significantly more dangerous than that of 1000 ft, but more importantly it also has a much higher potential risk of catastrophe as we are now witnessing. So in the sense that the government forced them to the deeper water where problems were more likely to occur and harder to deal with when they do, yes I think government regulations are a cause here.
This hardly absolves BP in even a small way though, as they did accept this risk by choosing to drill there. It does, however, illustrate how government intervention can inject the disastrous risk factors that create the justification people will then use to advocate for yet even more government intervention. Stunning really.
As for your question about what if a company can't pay for it's mistake? Well then every last penny of their assets will go towards paying for the damages they caused and the American people, charitable souls that they have time and time again proven themselves to be, will help cover the rest. This sense from you that you view the government as this paternal figure that steps in when things go wrong, is precisely the kind of mentality that was referred to in the Grover Cleveland quote from earlier. This BP disaster fits the situation almost perfectly. So let me just close with that again, only this time I'll quote a bit more of it:
"Though there has been some difference in statements concerning the extent of the people's needs in the localities thus affected, there seems to be no doubt that there has existed a condition calling for relief; and I am willing to believe that, notwithstanding the aid already furnished, a donation of seed-grain to the farmers located in this region, to enable them to put in new crops, would serve to avert a continuance or return of an unfortunate blight.
And yet I feel obliged to withhold my approval of the plan as proposed by this bill, to indulge a benevolent and charitable sentiment through the appropriation of public funds for that purpose.
I can find no warrant for such an appropriation in the Constitution, and I do not believe that the power and duty of the general government ought to be extended to the relief of individual suffering which is in no manner properly related to the public service or benefit. A prevalent tendency to disregard the limited mission of this power and duty should, I think, be steadfastly resisted, to the end that the lesson should be constantly enforced that, though the people support the government, the government should not support the people.
The friendliness and charity of our countrymen can always be relied upon to relieve their fellow-citizens in misfortune. This has been repeatedly and quite lately demonstrated. Federal aid in such cases encourages the expectation of paternal care on the part of the government and weakens the sturdiness of our national character, while it prevents the indulgence among our people of that kindly sentiment and conduct which strengthens the bonds of a common brotherhood."
2) I'm not really sure what your point here is honestly so I'll just give my thoughts.
Yes, it is the responsibility of people who take out a loan to ensure they will have the means to pay it, but it is also the responsibility of the lender to do the same in order to manage their risk. If that person well and truly cannot repay their loan they may have to consider bankruptcy, but more likely they can repay their loan and don't want to take the kind of jobs that are readily available to them. Sometimes you have to take a crap job below your education level while you look for a good job and people aren't always willing to do that.
Should the lender be stuck with the loan of an individual who truly cannot pay, they should be able to absorb the loss fairly readily as risk management is a basic aspect of lending. They count on a certain portion of people not repaying their loan and if they've managed their risk right it's not an issue. If they managed their risk wrong and they have a lot of those loans, then yes they may well be about to go under due to their own poor decisions.
Put simply: Yes, people are to blame for their choices, which includes the vast majority of the things that go wrong in their lives. And the same is true of business.
PS - I think you missed my last reply.
 |
| To Each Man, Responsibility |
