Citizens and Government - Responsibility (new poll!)

[BigBallinStalin]

Under what conditions is a citizen responsible for the acts of the government?

e.g. if the US were to engage in a terrorist act, are all of the citizens responsible? Which ones aren't? Are any--excluding the relevant politicians and bureaucrats?

[patches70]

Under what conditions is a citizen responsible for the acts of the government?

e.g. if the US were to engage in a terrorist act, are all of the citizens responsible? Which ones aren't? Are any--excluding the relevant politicians and bureaucrats?

I don't know, the US pretty much accuses Iran of being a sponsor of terrorists, but if we ever get around to attacking Iran we'll say "our argument is with the government of Iran, not the people". Isn't that how the line goes these days?

It seems governments separate citizens and governments when nations go into conflict, at least from the US perspective. That's the lip service at least....

[AndyDufresne]

BBS, if I hold my hands over my eyes, I can't be held responsible for anything. This is true fact.




--Andy

[smegal69]

Fixed for you

Under what conditions is a citizen responsible for the acts of the government?

e.g. The the US is engage in countless terrorist act, are all of the citizens responsible? Which ones aren't? Are any--excluding the relevant politicians and bureaucrats?

[BigBallinStalin]

BBS, if I hold my hands over my eyes, I can't be held responsible for anything. This is true fact.




--Andy

wat?

[mrswdk]

If you pay the taxes that enable the act and you continue to pay taxes after the act then you are complicit.

[BigBallinStalin]

If you pay the taxes that enable the act and you continue to pay taxes after the act then you are complicit.

Nah. I don't oblige everyone to be superheroes in resisting tyranny, nor is it justifiable to blame people for event X when they've been forced to fund event X.

[_sabotage_]

The gov is not responsive to the citizens, it is the citizens responsibility to keep them responsive, therefore the citizens have failed.

[thegreekdog]

If you pay the taxes that enable the act and you continue to pay taxes after the act then you are complicit.

Nah. I don't oblige everyone to be superheroes in resisting tyranny, nor is it justifiable to blame people for event X when they've been forced to fund event X.

I disagree. I take full responsibility for any United States military actions which I supported by taxes. My preference is not to go to prison and to retain my employment at the risk of deaths in the middle east. That being said, I am vocal in my preference to not engage in such military attacks, I just won't take it to a "hey, TGD, you're going to prison" level.

[mrswdk]

If you pay the taxes that enable the act and you continue to pay taxes after the act then you are complicit.

Nah. I don't oblige everyone to be superheroes in resisting tyranny, nor is it justifiable to blame people for event X when they've been forced to fund event X.

I said if event X happens and then people continue to fund the organization that carries out events like event X then they are complicit. If they wanted to then they could find ways of ceasing to pay money to the organization that is carrying out the acts they apparently object to*. If they don't do so then they have decided that on balance they are happy to keep funding this organization, knowing full well what it does with that money. Therefore they are complicit.



*and I don't just mean shouting 'herp derp' at the IRS and then going to jail. Canada is right there.

[BigBallinStalin]

@TGD & MISSES_SWEDICK

If someone robbed you, and then shot someone the next day, would you be responsible for the victim's death?

[mrswdk]

If a tree falls in the forest and I just bought a table, then am I responsible for global warming?

[BigBallinStalin]

If a tree falls in the forest and I just bought a table, then am I responsible for global warming?

You're confusing two kinds of exchange as the same thing. Stop that.

[thegreekdog]

@TGD & MISSES_SWEDICK

If someone robbed you, and then shot someone the next day, would you be responsible for the victim's death?

I can only assume that what the someone took from me is what they used to shoot the victim. If so, then yes I'm responsible for the victim's death. I had a choice: not get robbed (and presumably get killed) or get robbed. I chose the latter to save my life, thus the victim's death is at least partially my own fault.

[patches70]

@TGD & MISSES_SWEDICK

If someone robbed you, and then shot someone the next day, would you be responsible for the victim's death?

I can only assume that what the someone took from me is what they used to shoot the victim. If so, then yes I'm responsible for the victim's death. I had a choice: not get robbed (and presumably get killed) or get robbed. I chose the latter to save my life, thus the victim's death is at least partially my own fault.

So if someone comes into your house, holds you at gun point and steals your kitchen knife, then the next day the robber stabs someone to death with your kitchen knife,
You are at least partially responsible for the victims death?


Hahahahaha! I thought you were a lawyer?

[Metsfanmax]

@TGD & MISSES_SWEDICK

If someone robbed you, and then shot someone the next day, would you be responsible for the victim's death?

I can only assume that what the someone took from me is what they used to shoot the victim. If so, then yes I'm responsible for the victim's death. I had a choice: not get robbed (and presumably get killed) or get robbed. I chose the latter to save my life, thus the victim's death is at least partially my own fault.

Alternatively, if one thinks that taxation is in fact not robbery, then the analogy completely fails. In that case the better question is, "if you give a known murderer money and tell him to buy a gun with it, and he shoots someone the next day, would you be responsible for the victim's death?"

[patches70]

@TGD & MISSES_SWEDICK

If someone robbed you, and then shot someone the next day, would you be responsible for the victim's death?

I can only assume that what the someone took from me is what they used to shoot the victim. If so, then yes I'm responsible for the victim's death. I had a choice: not get robbed (and presumably get killed) or get robbed. I chose the latter to save my life, thus the victim's death is at least partially my own fault.

Alternatively, if one thinks that taxation is in fact not robbery, then the analogy completely fails. In that case the better question is, "if you give a known murderer money and tell him to buy a gun with it, and he shoots someone the next day, would you be responsible for the victim's death?"

Now THAT one would be partially responsible for if not equally responsible as the guy who pulled the trigger.

[BigBallinStalin]

@TGD & MISSES_SWEDICK

If someone robbed you, and then shot someone the next day, would you be responsible for the victim's death?

I can only assume that what the someone took from me is what they used to shoot the victim. If so, then yes I'm responsible for the victim's death. I had a choice: not get robbed (and presumably get killed) or get robbed. I chose the latter to save my life, thus the victim's death is at least partially my own fault.

So, not 'having' a choice in that matter means that you are responsible?

I understand the causal connection of this example (your money became the robber's revenue, some of which he invests in criminal tools); however, I view this as separate in determining your responsibility since responsibility entails a moral obligation--and with it the requisite "use rights" (i.e. the ability to exercise one's discretion over their goods). I don't subscribe to a moral philosophy which mandates that one must not contribute toward any means which results in harm--under any circumstance.

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.

[Metsfanmax]

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. You may be right that a moral worldview which demands resistance to the state at all times is too harsh to obey. But you still make a moral decision when you choose to avoid that route for the "fight battles you can win" route. This is a meaningful distinction to be made because innocent people who are dying to drone attacks in Pakistan (say) may be understandably underwhelmed by your decision to support the USFG monetarily instead of fighting it at every juncture. Whether or not they are right is a different story.

Of course, I don't think it goes to that level because I don't think most people really believe that taxation is robbery.

[thegreekdog]

@TGD & MISSES_SWEDICK

If someone robbed you, and then shot someone the next day, would you be responsible for the victim's death?

I can only assume that what the someone took from me is what they used to shoot the victim. If so, then yes I'm responsible for the victim's death. I had a choice: not get robbed (and presumably get killed) or get robbed. I chose the latter to save my life, thus the victim's death is at least partially my own fault.

So, not 'having' a choice in that matter means that you are responsible?

I understand the causal connection of this example (your money became the robber's revenue, some of which he invests in criminal tools); however, I view this as separate in determining your responsibility since responsibility entails a moral obligation--and with it the requisite "use rights" (i.e. the ability to exercise one's discretion over their goods). I don't subscribe to a moral philosophy which mandates that one must not contribute toward any means which results in harm--under any circumstance.

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.

What Mets said, but to put in laymen's terms...

Being responsible for something does not mean that I should feel badly about it. No offense to Victim here, but I'm more concerned with my own survival than Victim's survival and I'm okay with that (and Victim would have been too in my shoes). I think you're confusing "responsibility" with "guilt" a little bit here.

[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.

[BigBallinStalin]

What Mets said, but to put in laymen's terms...

Being responsible for something does not mean that I should feel badly about it. No offense to Victim here, but I'm more concerned with my own survival than Victim's survival and I'm okay with that (and Victim would have been too in my shoes). I think you're confusing "responsibility" with "guilt" a little bit here.

Perhaps, but responsibility entails a duty, does it not?

[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.

[thegreekdog]

What Mets said, but to put in laymen's terms...

Being responsible for something does not mean that I should feel badly about it. No offense to Victim here, but I'm more concerned with my own survival than Victim's survival and I'm okay with that (and Victim would have been too in my shoes). I think you're confusing "responsibility" with "guilt" a little bit here.

Perhaps, but responsibility entails a duty, does it not?

I'm not sure, but I think that's a completely different question (or, more accurately, a duty occurs once I've given up my resources in exchange for my personal freedom / life / convenience).

[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. 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.