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

[dank69]

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.

So, death? :hmm:

 

[BoberFett]

So, death? :hmm:

What do you propose? Right now we just shrug our shoulders and say "Sorry, [injured party], too bad. You're on your own." and wag our collective fingers at the offender. Maybe give him a hug because, hey, they're victims too.

 

[CycloWizard]

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.

I am all for more stringent requirements on drivers licenses. The problem is that you can't enforce such laws just like you can't enforce auto insurance mandates. Such policies only penalize those who abide by them, not the knuckle draggers who just do as they please anyway. Perhaps I'm the idiot for following such laws, as the laws only have power over those who follow them. I've driven for 16 years without an accident (until this one) and dutifully paid for insurance the entire time.

As far as group love and whatever other nonsense you're talking about, I don't give a damn. If someone can't drive, they should not be driving. If they cannot afford damage they might cause when they do drive, they should not be driving. Only an idiot would ever consider that texting or tweeting while driving is in any way acceptable practice and you can't reason with idiots. Only an idiot would think driving 40 mph through a parking lot during rush hour was acceptable practice. Only an idiot would think that doing both of these during rush hour on a college campus with 30k+ students would not result in bodily injury. If someone is willing to do all of those things simultaneously, they are obviously not capable of functioning in society on any level, excepting a society where they are not liable for anything they do - one where hippies say that I am responsible for a moron ramming my car. What a nonsense. In my mind, anyone trying to blame me for this is at least as bad as the driver because such a one enables this lax attitude of personal insusceptibility.

 

[CycloWizard]

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?

How does that help me? You're only interested in helping the person who actually did the deed while punishing me. The only rationale I can find for such a position is that you're actually a mindless zombie.

 

[nobodyknows]

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?

I think you just ruffled some feathers qwith that comment, although it made me laugh.

I've noticed many people through the years proclaim to people down on their luck that that life isn't fair, but they damn soon change their tune when life isn't fair... to them.

 

[spittledip]

.........

I think that "conservatives" tend toward harping about personality responsibility to feel superior to the "irresponsible"; "Liberals" tend toward harping about taking responsibility for the less fortunate to feel superior to the conservatives. These are not the only motivations, but if you read the posts here, it is pretty obvious that the need to feel superior may be the primary driving force behind all these beliefs. Yeah, we are all guilty of it; we all don't feel quite right inside our own skins and feel the drive to make ourselves feel better.

 

[werepossum]

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.

This, although I'd prefer providing opportunity over substance for those willing to take advantage of it. But I'm willing to pay for food and shelter even for the chronically lazy as the price of civilization. I'm just not willing to like it, or to do it without complaining.

There's an innate sense that if I'm doing my part, others should do their parts as well. That's basic fairness. Most of us don't mind having to pay for others' mistakes, but we expect them to get back up on their hind legs and help pull the wagon as soon as they are able. Saying "Oops, I've had a baby so now you have to support us both for the next eighteen years" is bullshit and unfair to those of us who live responsibly.

 

[CycloWizard]

This, although I'd prefer providing opportunity over substance for those willing to take advantage of it. But I'm willing to pay for food and shelter even for the chronically lazy as the price of civilization. I'm just not willing to like it, or to do it without complaining.

There's an innate sense that if I'm doing my part, others should do their parts as well. That's basic fairness. Most of us don't mind having to pay for others' mistakes, but we expect them to get back up on their hind legs and help pull the wagon as soon as they are able. Saying "Oops, I've had a baby so now you have to support us both for the next eighteen years" is bullshit and unfair to those of us who live responsibly.

This. If I am bound by the rules of the game, then why am I penalized when someone else breaks them? If living by the rules is the price of being part of society, what do we do when someone breaks the rules? The current system, where those who game the system, are not fit to live in society.

 

[Svnla]

Cycle,

Well said in post #5 and other posts afterward. I had a similar incident like you a while back. I parked my car at night and an idiot crashed into the front fender/door then drove away. I had to pay $500 out of my pocket ($250 for deductible and $250 for car rental).

If I did not have full coverage, I would have to pay over $3K to fix something that I did not do.

 

[Jaskalas]

Cycle,

Well said in post #5 and other posts afterward. I had a similar incident like you a while back. I parked my car at night and an idiot crashed into the front fender/door then drove away. I had to pay $500 out of my pocket ($250 for deductible and $250 for car rental).

If I did not have full coverage, I would have to pay over $3K to fix something that I did not do.

Wouldn't the Moonbeam solution be that the government pays your $3k for you?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

To look at things a bit differently consider-

A man is hungry and whether through his fault or not he is hungry. You do a good thing and give him a fish. He comes to you every day and you feed him. Then he says his wife is hungry as well. You do the compassionate thing and feed her too. This goes on and one day the man says that he and his wife are having a child. It is not the childs fault the man does not work. You must feed him too. There is another child and another. It is your obligation to feed them they are entitled to your fish. You feed them. Then one day a woman barely older than a child comes to you and says she is having a child. You must feed it. You ask about her husband and she looks at you puzzled. "Why do I need one?" You might respond "To provide for your child". She replies "I do not understand. You provide for us. You must do so now". You might reply "But it is good to provide for your own". She- "But why are you being so cruel? You gave my mother and her parents fish every day. Why do you punish me now? I do not understand work because I never needed to do so, and the more children I have the more fish you must provide. You have brought me to this. You owe me and mine fish forever and it is your fault."

You do just that because you cannot deny the helpless their food.

Do you congratulate yourself on your selflessness?

 

[sportage]

So tell me about some 21 year old refusing to purchase healthcare, then needing emergency ER services after a car accident, and "we" the insured picking up the bill in higher insurance rates for all insured.
Explain that reasoning....

 

[Icepick]

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.

So take away personal responsibility and you'll gladly commit murder and robbery. Do you have any compassion? Would you not feel remorse for taking another's life?

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.

I sincerly hope that people who cross your path each day are not as judgemental of you as you are of them. Earlier in the thread you alluded to having a career as a professor or teacher at a university. I'm slightly disturbed that your career places you in a position of authority over young students who are seeking to educate themselves. Do you also fantasize about "offing" students who hand in their assignments a day late?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

So tell me about some 21 year old refusing to purchase healthcare, then needing emergency ER services after a car accident, and "we" the insured picking up the bill in higher insurance rates for all insured.
Explain that reasoning....

Your principles are determined by your wallet. How right wing of you.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

So take away personal responsibility and you'll gladly commit murder and robbery. Do you have any compassion? Would you not feel remorse for taking another's life?

I sincerly hope that people who cross your path each day are not as judgemental of you as you are of them. Earlier in the thread you alluded to having a career as a professor or teacher at a university. I'm slightly disturbed that your career places you in a position of authority over young students who are seeking to educate themselves. Do you also fantasize about "offing" students who hand in their assignments a day late?

lol, I think those were rhetorical examples. Unfortunately, you can't rely on remorse being a constant in everyone's lives, and while I doubt this is a testable theory, I would still bet that there is an inverse relation between those that feel guilt and those that commit shameful acts. It's the focused Japanese student that kills himself when he feels he has failed to meet the expectations on him through school and work. It's the selfish and guiltless drunk driving fraternity/sorority student that kills people. That is why it is necessary to have a strong system in place to remove those that refuse to regulate their own bad behavior.

 

[Icepick]

To look at things a bit differently consider-

A man is hungry and whether through his fault or not he is hungry. You do a good thing and give him a fish. He comes to you every day and you feed him. Then he says his wife is hungry as well. You do the compassionate thing and feed her too. This goes on and one day the man says that he and his wife are having a child. It is not the childs fault the man does not work. You must feed him too. There is another child and another. It is your obligation to feed them they are entitled to your fish. You feed them. Then one day a woman barely older than a child comes to you and says she is having a child. You must feed it. You ask about her husband and she looks at you puzzled. "Why do I need one?" You might respond "To provide for your child". She replies "I do not understand. You provide for us. You must do so now". You might reply "But it is good to provide for your own". She- "But why are you being so cruel? You gave my mother and her parents fish every day. Why do you punish me now? I do not understand work because I never needed to do so, and the more children I have the more fish you must provide. You have brought me to this. You owe me and mine fish forever and it is your fault."

You do just that because you cannot deny the helpless their food.

Do you congratulate yourself on your selflessness?

No. By all means, teach the person to fish so that they can fend for themselves for a lifetime. They will, in turn, teach others to fish and so on. Then each of the persons in your example will become self reliant. The quality of life will have been increased for all including the narrator of your lesson since they will not be burdening him (or her) with thier needs.

 

[Moonbeam]

CycloWizard: If I am bound by the rules of the game, then why am I penalized when someone else breaks them?

M: The reason is self evident. The rules of the game are set up so that the actions of individuals don't penalize others, so it stands to reason and is obvious that you will be penalized by somebody who breaks them. We would have never created the rules in the first place if this were not the case. You are bellyaching about something that's a truism.

CW: If living by the rules is the price of being part of society, what do we do when someone breaks the rules?

M: Folk who are disadvantaged usually spend a life in prison or worse. Folk of means hire lawyers to beat the system. We generally have a graded response that takes into account the possibility that some folk improve, start disadvantaged, etc.

The quality of mercy is not strain'd,
It droppeth as the gentle rain from heaven
Upon the place beneath. It is twice blest:
It blesseth him that gives and him that takes.

eh?

CW: The current system, where those who game the system, are not fit to live in society.

M: Bad English but I think you must mean that in the system we have those who game it are not fit to live in it. The problem with that, however, is that you and your moral absolutism is the system, intolerant and hard, self interested and anti-social, such that our system produces just the sort of folk you despise. This is always the way, the son of the preacher is a hellion, a rebel and destructive. We always create what we fear.

 

[Moonbeam]

To look at things a bit differently consider-

A man is hungry and whether through his fault or not he is hungry. You do a good thing and give him a fish. He comes to you every day and you feed him. Then he says his wife is hungry as well. You do the compassionate thing and feed her too. This goes on and one day the man says that he and his wife are having a child. It is not the childs fault the man does not work. You must feed him too. There is another child and another. It is your obligation to feed them they are entitled to your fish. You feed them. Then one day a woman barely older than a child comes to you and says she is having a child. You must feed it. You ask about her husband and she looks at you puzzled. "Why do I need one?" You might respond "To provide for your child". She replies "I do not understand. You provide for us. You must do so now". You might reply "But it is good to provide for your own". She- "But why are you being so cruel? You gave my mother and her parents fish every day. Why do you punish me now? I do not understand work because I never needed to do so, and the more children I have the more fish you must provide. You have brought me to this. You owe me and mine fish forever and it is your fault."

You do just that because you cannot deny the helpless their food.

Do you congratulate yourself on your selflessness?

And when it was evening, his disciples came to him, saying, This is a desert place, and the time is now past; send the multitude away, that they may go into the villages, and buy themselves victuals.
victuals

But Jesus said unto them, They need not depart; give ye them to eat.

And they say unto him, We have here but five loaves, and two fishes.

He said, Bring them hither to me.

And he commanded the multitude to sit down on the grass, and took the five loaves, and the two fishes, and looking up to heaven, he blessed, and brake, and gave the loaves to his disciples, and the disciples to the multitude.

And they did all eat, and were filled: and they took up of the fragments that remained twelve baskets full.

 

[FoBoT]

the main issue is voluntary or non-voluntary
voluntarily paying leads to less resentment
non-voluntary, that is by the government, leads to resentment, because it is by force

being forced to help others leads to resentment

 

[Moonbeam]

the main issue is voluntary or non-voluntary
voluntarily paying leads to less resentment
non-voluntary, that is by the government, leads to resentment, because it is by force

being forced to help others leads to resentment

Which of course also makes no sense. When everybody is forced to give that takes a load off the responsible who will give anyway. When the irresponsible are forced to contribute to some need, the responsible who would cover that need our of a sense of responsibility don't have to give as much. This means they will have extra to give as they wish.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

And when it was evening, his disciples came to him, saying, This is a desert place, and the time is now past; send the multitude away, that they may go into the villages, and buy themselves victuals.
victuals

But Jesus said unto them, They need not depart; give ye them to eat.

And they say unto him, We have here but five loaves, and two fishes.

He said, Bring them hither to me.

And he commanded the multitude to sit down on the grass, and took the five loaves, and the two fishes, and looking up to heaven, he blessed, and brake, and gave the loaves to his disciples, and the disciples to the multitude.

And they did all eat, and were filled: and they took up of the fragments that remained twelve baskets full.

This is good, but also:

Then Jesus was led by the Spirit into the desert to be tempted by the devil. After fasting forty days and forty nights, he was hungry. The tempter came to him and said, "If you are the Son of God, tell these stones to become bread." Jesus answered, "It is written: 'Man does not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of God.'"

It is right that we help those in need but there is more to being a human than receiving aid. I believe that while necessary help is a good thing to give, one must be careful to not remove all motivation and kill the spirit by making slaves by kindness. Indeed we have made a world where some do not understand that a job well done is a source of satisfaction apart from mere compensation and work is not punishment. To provide all resources without obligation or real opportunity in perpetuity is not doing good no more than giving a child all that he may want demonstrates love. Jesus fed the thousands, but not every day. Compassion is our moral obligation but not by a lazy careless process that feeds the body and starves the soul. That is laziness to soothe the conscience not the application of discernment or wisdom needed to restore a person. That seems to me to be what is best.

 

[Svnla]

Did the Bible say something about if you don't work, you don't eat?

 

[disappoint]

Did the Bible say something about if you don't work, you don't eat?

The Bible, being a book, has no ability of speech.

In case you are wondering, yes there is a reason I am pointing this out.

 

[JEDIYoda]

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.

Actually Moonbeam is 100% correct in his assesment of your responses!!:thumbsup::thumbsup:

 

[RedString]

Actually Moonbeam is 100% correct in his assesment of your responses!!:thumbsup::thumbsup:

How does it smell down there?