Why do we resent having to pay for the mistakes others make?

[Moonbeam]

I was just reading in the thread about woman's reproductive rights and health care that some folk don't want to pay for the mistakes others make, obviously abortion for women who 'carelessly' get pregnant. And this carries over into a million other social issues, welfare, drug rehabilitation, etc etc etc.

What could possibly be the psychology behind such thinking, allowing unwanted children to grow up psychopaths and shoot you in the back? These self reliant types, I guess, all carry, and may even psychologically hope for such an attack, but surely their wives or children are not so well protected. Of course, ones neighborhood and gated community can make some difference. Even God loves gates, no?

So, while for liberals, such selfishness seems like a form of dementia, it has to have a deeper origin than a simple lack of IQ.

And in puzzling about it this is what I thought:

The need to allow folk to sink or swim on their own merits, to follow Darwin's model, is really hubris and conceit, the feeling that oneself can make it and is of great value, morally superior and gifted with a work ethic, capacity, ability, intelligence, etc etc etc. And all these skills came at a sacrifice, a dominion of the Will over ones animal nature, good over evil.

Yes, I think that the key to this thinking is a feeling of superiority and pride because one has mastered ones lower self, that one is not like the rabble and all that because one conformed to the notion of what it is to be a winner.

So having destroyed the happy relaxed cheerfully unconcerned monkey one was born as, and become a productive driven little machine, one looks out on the untrained but living, with disdain. One has paid already in mental health for the success one has in live, and now they want you to pay again. No way, eh?

So those who were most taught and driven to achieve by despising weakness, are actually among us the most sad.

Opinions?

 

[nageov3t]

edit: it's probably because we all hate ourselves so much

 

[xeemzor]

Oh how I missed your posts Moonbeam <3.

 

[crashtestdummy]

I think there's two aspects here:

1) Conservatives don't like abortion, think it is murder, and want to minimize the number of abortions that occur any way they can. By making abortions harder to get, they are lowering the aggregate number.
2) There is the principle that if you make abortions cheap, you provide no disincentive to have them more frequently, creating a cost spiral.

Argument 1 is strongly centered on the question of when human life begins and is very difficult and subjective. Although I strongly disagree with it, I understand the argument.

Claim 2 is simply wrong. There is strong evidence that the legalization of abortion has lowered crime. From the paper:

The evidence we present is consistent with legalized abortion reducing crime rates with a twenty-year lag. Our results suggest that an increase of 100 abortions per 1000 live births reduces a cohort&#8217;s crime by roughly 10 percent. Extrapolating our results out of sample to a counterfactual in which abortion remained illegal and the number of illegal abortions performed remained steady at the 1960s level, we estimate that (with average national effective abortion rates in 1997 for all three crimes ranging from between 142 and 252) crime was almost 15&#8211;25 percent lower in 1997 than it would have been absent legalized abortion.

These estimates suggest that legalized abortion is a primary explanation for the large drops in murder, property crime, and violent crime that our nation has experienced over the last decade. Indeed, legalized abortion may account for as much as one-half of the overall crime reduction. Assuming that this claim is correct, existing estimates of the costs of crime (e.g., Miller, Cohen, and Rossman [1993] suggest that the social benefit to reduced crime as a result of abortion may be on the order of $30 billion dollars annually. Increased imprisonment between 1991 and 1997 (the prison population rose about 50 percent over this period) lowered crime 10 percent based on an elasticity of 2 .20. Thus, together abortion and prison growth explain much, if not all, of the decrease in crime.

For the most part however, if we're being realistic, people use argument 2 to achieve argument 1.

 

[CycloWizard]

I was driving across campus the other day on my way home from work. I was following the speed limit, wearing a seat belt, driving in my lane, not talking on a cell phone, and on a major road: I was following all of the rules required to safely drive a car in the presence of other cars. My car was rammed by a student who ran a stop sign while driving 40 mph in a parking lot while texting during rush hour. Since then, I've had chronic injuries, lost about 40 hours of my time filling out all of the paperwork, going to pick up a rental car, filing insurance claims and police reports, and lost about $1500 due to insurance deductibles, taxes, fees, and increased gas costs in the rental car. It turns out that this student didn't have insurance. I followed all of your holy laws, which you claim are in place to ensure civilization. The student did not. In the end, I am penalized for someone else's actions.

Is it selfish of me that I don't want to lose my health, time, and money because someone else can't be bothered to pay attention while driving? I lost days of time I would have otherwise spent preparing lectures for my students, so they are also penalized. I lost time that I otherwise would have spent on research to treat a condition affecting every person over the age of 40. I lost money that I could have used to do whatever I wanted to do with $1500. By this student's act of selfishness, she stole all of those things from me, my students, and anyone who might benefit from my research work.

You simply have the perspective backwards. You want me to suffer for someone else's misdeeds. You want me to pay for her actions simply because I have money. I followed the rules and have been penalized. You want a society with rules because rules give you control. These rules are obviously not established to ensure justice, so why do we have them? What is the purpose of government? Is it to ensure justice and protect from infringement of basic rights? Is it to ensure that the needs of all its citizens are met? I want to know.

 

[Ynog]

I won't debate the social issues. People believe in social issues. People rarely change their beliefs based on debate and discussion.

Your opinion seems to discount that many Liberals attack the "Darwinism" from the social side. The belief that improvements for society help everyone (including oneself) in the long run. But of course does have limits. For example, if I start a business and I fail miserably, most Liberals will have no problem making sure I don't go hungry and feel that I shouldn't have to live on the street. However they aren't going to reward my mistake by providing aid in my next attempt to create another business. In addition, I know many liberals that would resent such actions.


You brought up abortion. There is no common ground between conservatives and liberals.

The key difference in abortions is that conservatives and liberals do not see the situation as the same thing. Many conservatives feel as though once a woman is pregnant that baby is alive, even while unborn. Most liberals feel as though the baby isn't alive until its born.

One side feels that you are murdering a living thing, the other side feels that it is not alive yet. There is no Darwinism there between Liberals and Conservatives. Conservatives feel it is murder and will use any avenue prevent/limit/stop this.

 

[ky54]

Cyclowizard, what would consider fair justice on the student that hit you? What would make it right to your mind? I'm really curious.

 

[Moonbeam]

I was driving across campus the other day on my way home from work. I was following the speed limit, wearing a seat belt, driving in my lane, not talking on a cell phone, and on a major road: I was following all of the rules required to safely drive a car in the presence of other cars. My car was rammed by a student who ran a stop sign while driving 40 mph in a parking lot while texting during rush hour. Since then, I've had chronic injuries, lost about 40 hours of my time filling out all of the paperwork, going to pick up a rental car, filing insurance claims and police reports, and lost about $1500 due to insurance deductibles, taxes, fees, and increased gas costs in the rental car. It turns out that this student didn't have insurance. I followed all of your holy laws, which you claim are in place to ensure civilization. The student did not. In the end, I am penalized for someone else's actions.

Is it selfish of me that I don't want to lose my health, time, and money because someone else can't be bothered to pay attention while driving? I lost days of time I would have otherwise spent preparing lectures for my students, so they are also penalized. I lost time that I otherwise would have spent on research to treat a condition affecting every person over the age of 40. I lost money that I could have used to do whatever I wanted to do with $1500. By this student's act of selfishness, she stole all of those things from me, my students, and anyone who might benefit from my research work.

You simply have the perspective backwards. You want me to suffer for someone else's misdeeds. You want me to pay for her actions simply because I have money. I followed the rules and have been penalized. You want a society with rules because rules give you control. These rules are obviously not established to ensure justice, so why do we have them? What is the purpose of government? Is it to ensure justice and protect from infringement of basic rights? Is it to ensure that the needs of all its citizens are met? I want to know.

I think the backward myopia lies in the fact of your inability to conceive of a situation in which it was you that hit a student. The perfect responsibility which which you claim you drive is a personal delusion.

 

[CycloWizard]

I think the backward myopia lies in the fact of your inability to conceive of a situation in which it was you that hit a student. The perfect responsibility which which you claim you drive is a personal delusion.

That can be your only answer because your worldview is so skewed that you implicitly dismiss the concept of personal responsibility. If I am not responsible for my actions, then I will be more than happy to weld a cow-catcher to the front of my car and plow students down in the crosswalk. I will start robbing banks because I am not culpable and that money doesn't really belong to anyone anyway. There is no property or liability in your worldview. You fail to see that this essentially makes you an anarchist, leading to the contradiction that you want to use government as a weapon to take what is mine and make it yours because you think nothing is really mine, all the while failing to see that this reasoning implies that nothing is really yours either. If there is no right to property then government cannot exist to protect such a right. Your worldview is one in which the whole mess is one big game of grab-ass to see who can use the government to take the most from one group and give it to another. Ironically, this is the exact same behavior you so despise in others. You feel morally validated since those you want to take from have a lot and those you want to give to have little. In short, you're nothing more than a hypocrite. I don't hold it against you because your hate of others has blinded you to the natural conclusions of your argument.

 

[ky54]

That can be your only answer because your worldview is so...

And on and on. I don't want to get in the middle of a personal feud. What would like to know is what would you consider justice in your case?

 

[Jaskalas]

I think the backward myopia lies in the fact of your inability to conceive of a situation in which it was you that hit a student. The perfect responsibility which which you claim you drive is a personal delusion.

With reality turned on its head, cats eat dogs in Moonbeam's world.

 

[Ninjahedge]

Cyclo, you are putting it in the perspective of the exception that proves the rule.

What would you say about having this kid trained better in driving school (before teh accident)? What about trying to accept him and his family into the fold so that things like Texting while Driving was not an option that was ever considered?

While there are always small, select instances where one person is 100% at fault through their own negligence, there are few where that could not have been avoided or reduced in some way by pro-active preventative care or training.

Spitting on a drunk will not get him to stop drinking, but it is a hell of a lot easier.

 

[amish]

The perfect responsibility which which you claim you drive is a personal delusion.

the illusion that we are responsible for not only our actions but the actions of those around us is a farce. we are barely responsible for personal actions how can we be responsible for the actions of others? why do we continue to spread the responsibilities among the entire population?

short answer: there is a complete and utter lack of personal accountability.

 

[Ninjahedge]

The key here is to realize that, although we are not responsible for the actions of others, acknowledgement, our actions (or lack thereof) do effect the actions of others. It is not one persons FAULT if they do not help an old lady across the street, or help pick up someones spilled groceries, but it is hard to deny the FACT that help like that not only makes things run better, but makes people FEEL better (pay it forward. Stupid flik, good premise).

So, that said, simply looking down at those that are less fortunate or are doing things wrong is not a solution. It is just a way we rank ourselves in society. By hating those that are doing things wrong, somehow we are better.

the root of this has probably been explored, and has gotten us to where we are today. But it does not quite fit with today's society.

 

[Paul98]

Because people like to think they are perfect, and don't make mistakes that others have to pay for? Or thinking that everyone is in the same situation, so why would they make the decisions that they do?

 

[Paul98]

Or that the majority of people just do stupid shit, and those who aren't stupid get angry that they have to pay for the idiots who do stupid shit over and over?

 

[Moonbeam]

CycloWizard: That can be your only answer because your worldview is so skewed that you implicitly dismiss the concept of personal responsibility.

M: This is not my only answer at all. In the first place, because I do not wish to suffer the financial loss of having my life and car ruined by some irresponsible person, I carry insurance, including uninsured motorist insurance which I pay for and you doubtlessly sucked off with your accident, despite the fact, and owing with certain to to the tremendous situational awareness I bring to my driving as a result both of my fully conscious state and inordinate functional spatial IQ, I have never had to collect on, having, at the last second, avoided numerous even fatal encounters with unconscious fool. You will pardon me then, if I feel little sympathy for your condition, as it happen, in my opinion, you have ripped me off in the cost of my insurance.

And secondly, there can be a vast difference in feeling that one is a victim because of the price one pays to be what you call responsible, and actually being a real victim of some real injustice. The feeling that I am robbed every time you collect on an accident in which the other party has no insurance because it raises my rates, some would call insane.

CW: If I am not responsible for my actions, then I will be more than happy to weld a cow-catcher to the front of my car and plow students down in the crosswalk. I will start robbing banks because I am not culpable and that money doesn't really belong to anyone anyway. There is no property or liability in your worldview.

In the first place you are a liar. You are not kept in line by fear of the consequences of irresponsibility and if you are you are ultimately a very shallow and dangerous character. You do it because you believe it is right. your morality is internalized. There is no property or liability and it makes not the slightest difference to me. I act for the benefit of others simply out of love.

CW: You fail to see that this essentially makes you an anarchist, leading to the contradiction that you want to use government as a weapon to take what is mine and make it yours because you think nothing is really mine, all the while failing to see that this reasoning implies that nothing is really yours either.

M: I am the government and I am governed by love. Nothing that you have belongs to me and I have nothing at all. I vote that the government be like me.

CW: If there is no right to property then government cannot exist to protect such a right.

M: For the last 4 million years or so property was a few flakes of stone you could carry in one hand. There wasn't much competitiveness or envy.

CW: Your worldview is one in which the whole mess is one big game of grab-ass to see who can use the government to take the most from one group and give it to another. Ironically, this is the exact same behavior you so despise in others. You feel morally validated since those you want to take from have a lot and those you want to give to have little. In short, you're nothing more than a hypocrite. I don't hold it against you because your hate of others has blinded you to the natural conclusions of your argument.

M: Your worldview is one in which the whole mess is one big game of grab-ass to see who can use the government to escape from one group acquire status and not pay to get anybody else there. Ironically, this is the exact same behavior you so love in others of your kind. You feel morally validated since those you want to take from have are deservedly poor and those you want to give don't exist. In short, you're nothing more than a hypocrite. I don't hold it against you because your hate of others has blinded you to the natural conclusions of your argument.

 

[Moonbeam]

the illusion that we are responsible for not only our actions but the actions of those around us is a farce. we are barely responsible for personal actions how can we be responsible for the actions of others? why do we continue to spread the responsibilities among the entire population?

short answer: there is a complete and utter lack of personal accountability.

This may look to be the case but it is not so. You are always personally accountable. It's just that our powers of self deception are so profound that we do not consciously suffer from our sins. Our suffering comes in a different form. We do not know love and that makes our lives a zero.

 

[woolfe9999]

I don't mind a modest amount of wealth re-distribution to provide basic subsistence for everyone because we do not have anything approaching absolute equality of opportunity. There is no such thing in the real world.

A second reason is patriotism. I don't want America to be a country that lets its citizens starve in the street. It is un-American. That is what they do in the developing world. We have plenty of resources here that no one has to starve and we can still have lots of people who are fabulously wealthy beyond your wildest dreams. Everyone having bare bones subsistence is not incompatible with a system that rewards people based on merit past the subsistence level.

 

[BoberFett]

Cyclo, you are putting it in the perspective of the exception that proves the rule.

What would you say about having this kid trained better in driving school (before teh accident)? What about trying to accept him and his family into the fold so that things like Texting while Driving was not an option that was ever considered?

While there are always small, select instances where one person is 100% at fault through their own negligence, there are few where that could not have been avoided or reduced in some way by pro-active preventative care or training.

Spitting on a drunk will not get him to stop drinking, but it is a hell of a lot easier.

Because on the whole, humans are inherently selfish and as long as there is a system in place which allows them to bypass the negative results of their actions, they will abuse that system as much as they can. The ways to deal with human apathy and greed are to A) have a society that pays for the mistakes of others but enforces rigid social structure with an iron fist such that behavior outside of the norm is largely eliminated through severe punishment or B) eliminate those societal safety nets and leave people to deal with their own failings so they're encouraged not to fail in the future. This is one of the fundamental differences between authoritarian and libertarian views. It's tough to maintain a middle ground, because that's where people take advantage of the system resulting in stories like CycloWizards. If society pays for the mistakes of the guy that wrecked his week, what incentive does CW have to be careful that he doen'st wreck somebody elses week? He has been shown that lack of concern for others has no downside.

 

[amish]

This may look to be the case but it is not so. You are always personally accountable. It's just that our powers of self deception are so profound that we do not consciously suffer from our sins. Our suffering comes in a different form. We do not know love and that makes our loves a zero.

if we are personally accountable why make someone else pay for the mistake that was personally made? people shy away from their duty of self. this isn't about sins or love. this is about actions and reactions.

one may invest time or money in a person, place or thing and still not love it.

 

[Moonbeam]

Because on the whole, humans are inherently selfish and as long as there is a system in place which allows them to bypass the negative results of their actions, they will abuse that system as much as they can. The ways to deal with human apathy and greed are to A) have a society that pays for the mistakes of others but enforces rigid social structure with an iron fist such that behavior outside of the norm is largely eliminated through severe punishment or B) eliminate those societal safety nets and leave people to deal with their own failings so they're encouraged not to fail in the future. This is one of the fundamental differences between authoritarian and libertarian views. It's tough to maintain a middle ground, because that's where people take advantage of the system resulting in stories like CycloWizards. If society pays for the mistakes of the guy that wrecked his week, what incentive does CW have to be careful that he doen'st wreck somebody elses week? He has been shown that lack of concern for others has no downside.

No downside or not the downside he wanted or you wanted? What if the downside is loss of self respect, grief at the damage caused, determination to be more careful in the future, etc etc etc?

 

[dank69]

I don't mind a modest amount of wealth re-distribution to provide basic subsistence for everyone because we do not have anything approaching absolute equality of opportunity. There is no such thing in the real world.

A second reason is patriotism. I don't want America to be a country that lets its citizens starve in the street. It is un-American. That is what they do in the developing world. We have plenty of resources here that no one has to starve and we can still have lots of people who are fabulously wealthy beyond your wildest dreams. Everyone having bare bones subsistence is not incompatible with a system that rewards people based on merit past the subsistence level.

:thumbsup:

This. No man is an island, not even CycloWizard, as much as he may want to be.

I would also like to see what CycloWizard thinks should happen to the student in the name of justice.

 

[BoberFett]

No downside or not the downside he wanted or you wanted? What if the downside is loss of self respect, grief at the damage caused, determination to be more careful in the future, etc etc etc?

There are people that see none of those downsides. They're called sociopaths, and they make up a much larger percentage of society than you'd like to think.

An accident causes no self-respect, because they don't believe it's their fault. They don't care about the damage caused because society picks up the tab. And based on the previous two sentences, why would they worry about being careful in the future, because future mistakes are still not their fault and somebody else picks up the pieces.

Ironically, those are exactly the type of people who succeed in the system we have. Just look at Wall St.

 

[CycloWizard]

And on and on. I don't want to get in the middle of a personal feud. What would like to know is what would you consider justice in your case?

Justice is someone being held responsible for their actions. In this case, that would be very simple: the at-fault driver should reimburse me for the results of their actions. The mechanism by which our society does this is with currency. My time, health, and property were lost as a result of the driver's actions. Under normal circumstances, this would be covered by the driver's insurance. In the absence of insurance, the driver should be personally liable for this compensation. Instead, the law mandates that the person have insurance but they don't. I am therefore stuck holding the bag unless I want to invest substantially more time and effort into trying to get my money back through the court system. The correct solution is allow people to manage their finances as they wish while legally forcing restitution in a timely manner. If someone causes an accident and can't cover the damages they induce, they should be thrown via catapult into the far reaches of the Pacific Ocean where their disregard for the rights of others will no longer be an undue burden on those of us who wish to participate in society.