Anyone Else Find This Description Of "Personal Responsibility" Odd?

[GenSeneca]

To abide by the law and if I so chose, help them when in need.

But, the government has no right to steal my property and give it to others.

But, we are well past these things.

Thanks but I had hoped Pocket would tell us what personal responsibility he has to his fellow Americans.

For collectivists, its always in terms of "we" and "our" when it comes to responsibility, sacrifice and obligation, they only see themselves as being personally obligated with responsibilities and sacrifices once everyone is forced to share the burden with them, and no sooner.

 

[Little-Acorn]

what about our responsibility to fellow Americans, to people?

Keep in mind that this is being spoken by someone who, when he says "our" in this context, actually means "the government's".

It is a hallmark of modern liberals - a surefire way to spot them - that they believe if government doesn't provide something, NOBODY will provide it. The idea that sovereign individuals could possible be people who would gladly give to those in need, is completely alien to these government-uber-alles people.

Sometimes I think the right forgets about that....

Another sentiment common to the government-uber-alles fanatics.

And a sentiment which is ALWAYS accompanied by a complete absense of examples. They can never name a single "rightist" who actually lives the way they accuse. But that doesn't stop them from painting with the broadest, most denigrating brush possible.

(yawn)

 

[pocketfullofshells]

Thanks but I had hoped Pocket would tell us what personal responsibility he has to his fellow Americans.

For collectivists, its always in terms of "we" and "our" when it comes to responsibility, sacrifice and obligation, they only see themselves as being personally obligated with responsibilities and sacrifices once everyone is forced to share the burden with them, and no sooner.

you mean outside paying my taxes? well you could count the money I donate...I have spent alot of time helping my friend/ex with her medical issues, offering money when needed as well, I have a friend who can't drive or get around , who has alot of mental and physical issues...last few weeks have been using some of my days off to drive 45-a hour depending on traffic to her place to get her to Physical therapy, and the Dr...

But I am sorry if you don't want to bothered with the fact others don't have access to health care....It must be nice, to just not care right? or wait maybe you do care...so long as the evil government does not help them right?

 

[pocketfullofshells]

Keep in mind that this is being spoken by someone who, when he says "our" in this context, actually means "the government's".

It is a hallmark of modern liberals - a surefire way to spot them - that they believe if government doesn't provide something, NOBODY will provide it. The idea that sovereign individuals could possible be people who would gladly give to those in need, is completely alien to these government-uber-alles people.


Another sentiment common to the government-uber-alles fanatics.

And a sentiment which is ALWAYS accompanied by a complete absense of examples. They can never name a single "rightist" who actually lives the way they accuse. But that doesn't stop them from painting with the broadest, most denigrating brush possible.

(yawn)

Yawn all you want, I stop caring long ago about your mindless posts and ideas. For the life of me, not sure how you got off ignore anyway

 

[ktucan1]

On January 11, 2010, Senator Mary Landrieu was confronted by protestors outside the Vermilion Parish Library as she spoke about coastal protection. The protestors were there to discuss the Senator’s vote on health care reform. As she responded to criticism, she noted:


This is a strange kind of personal responsibility. Real personal responsibility requires individual people to take ownership of their actions. If the government mandates behavior, it can hardly be thought of as people taking the responsibility to accomplish something on their own.

To make matters worse, Landrieu follows up with a promise that the government will help pay for this required behavior. It seems that she views personal responsibility as something that ought be legislated and subsidized rather than left to the individual where it belongs.

If legislators focused on addressing the unnecessary rules and regulations that drive up the cost of insurance and health care, more individuals could afford to act responsibly. That would be better for the individual and less expensive for the government.

Personal Responsibility depends upon the person. For example if my next door neighbor gets his house broken into and I observe it from my window am I obligated to report it? Yes and No, However I would because its the right thing to do. That to me is an example of personal responsibility not only to myself but to my neighbor too because I would hope he or she would do the same for me. Now don't get me wrong I for one do believe we are not obligated to each other however looking out for each other is the right thing to do as long as we don't take it to the extreme and start relying upon each for everything. I know sometimes we like to chastise those who tend to bring things on themselves and it's only human nature to do so. At the same time we are taught to rise above nature and become better people for it. Now back to what you were talking about. Since Sen. Landrieu is a politician and her purpose in life is to stay in office at any expense. She's just going with the flow and her survival instincts are kicking in. It's easy for any member of Congress to complain about health care in this country whether they are for it or against it. They have the best health care in this country and as long as it doesn't effect them or their immediate family they could really care less about the rest of us. Government needs to stay out of the Health Care business but at the same time something needs to be done about those who lose their coverage because of a job loss or a pre-existing condition. I mean I know we like to be stern but not at the expense of those who came upon hard times and are only trying to stay afloat long enough to get by.

 

[GenSeneca]

you mean outside paying my taxes?

What percentage of your income are you willing to let the government take from you?

well you could count the money I donate...

What percentage of your income would represent your charitable donations?

I have spent alot of time helping my
friend(s)

Is your help compulsory and done under the threat of force, or do you help your friends volitionally, without the threat of force?

But I am sorry if you don't want to bothered with the fact others don't have access to health care....It must be nice, to just not care right? or wait maybe you do care...so long as the evil government does not help them right?

There are homeless people downtown... If I were to put a gun to your head and force you to hand over money so that I could redistribute your wealth to feed, clothe and house individuals you don't know and will never meet, would you see my actions as being compassionate or criminal? Moral or immoral?

I see such actions as being criminal and immoral. Collectivists can, and often do, elect politicians who write legislation stating such extortion is perfectly legal when done by government, but its still immoral.

Its not that I don't care about suffering, I care about not having my rights violated under the pretense of compassion, and when you make "charitable" giving compulsory (rather than voluntary), it ceases to be charity and becomes extortion at the point of a gun.

Its easy for collectivists to paint such a picture of people who don't want a gun put to their head as greeedy, selfish, and uncaring, but its the collectivist that's holding the gun and using it to extort money from their unarmed victims. In this way, the collectivists can play the role of compassionate heros of the down trodden, by redistributing wealth, but their actions are no different from the criminals and tyrants in history that have destroyed lives, property, individual rights, and countries, under the guise of promoting the common good.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

What percentage of your income are you willing to let the government take from you?


What percentage of your income would represent your charitable donations?


Is your help compulsory and done under the threat of force, or do you help your friends volitionally, without the threat of force?


There are homeless people downtown... If I were to put a gun to your head and force you to hand over money so that I could redistribute your wealth to feed, clothe and house individuals you don't know and will never meet, would you see my actions as being compassionate or criminal? Moral or immoral?

I see such actions as being criminal and immoral. Collectivists can, and often do, elect politicians who write legislation stating such extortion is perfectly legal when done by government, but its still immoral.

Its not that I don't care about suffering, I care about not having my rights violated under the pretense of compassion, and when you make "charitable" giving compulsory (rather than voluntary), it ceases to be charity and becomes extortion at the point of a gun.

Its easy for collectivists to paint such a picture of people who don't want a gun put to their head as greeedy, selfish, and uncaring, but its the collectivist that's holding the gun and using it to extort money from their unarmed victims. In this way, the collectivists can play the role of compassionate heros of the down trodden, by redistributing wealth, but their actions are no different from the criminals and tyrants in history that have destroyed lives, property, individual rights, and countries, under the guise of promoting the common good.

Well its nice that you care...so long as you don't have to do anything about it. When you lose your job, and your family losses it health care, or the Insurance company decided your to sick and drop you, or you can't get more because of a pre existing condition...I hope we can all say, feel bad...but screw you, its my money and I have to keep it all to myself. And the Homeless, what is the leading cause of being Homeless? Mental Illness...but of course, not like they can get help right? They would have to pay for that them self, no health care...It was negative 20 last few weeks, I suppose your against us paying for shelters right? After all thats your tax money going to help keep them out of the cold? Or are you just worried it would cost to much to send people out after to clean up the bodies if we did not?

Seems for you, outside the Military, its Evey man for himself...At one point do you think we should care enough about the health of Fellow Americans, its worth it to open your precious check book and help?

 

[Little-Acorn]

Yawn all you want, I stop caring long ago about your mindless posts and ideas.

When you can't refute them, and your attempts at attacking the messenger keep blowing up in your face, I guess your only alternative is to ignore them and hope nobody else reads them, eh?

When admitting the truth is out of the question for you, that kinda limits your options, doesn't it..... A VERY common problem liberals are having nowadays.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

When you can't refute them, and your attempts at attacking the messenger keep blowing up in your face, I guess your only alternative is to ignore them and hope nobody else reads them, eh?

When admitting the truth is out of the question for you, that kinda limits your options, doesn't it..... A VERY common problem liberals are having nowadays.

no I just fount your a worthless person to talk to. So I don't waste time

 

[chestnut]

sometimes personal responsibility does not always meet up with the reality of the real world...in a fantasy land, its your responsability to get health care, because we all can afford it, so its just your lack of responsibility to get it yourself. But in the real world , we have 10% unemployment and how much of that lack of employment is lack of personal responsibility? you had a 60,000 a year job, you payed for your health care, you did what is asked, you did your job well....the company folded, or needed to make cuts due to the econ....you lost job....your family needed that job for both income and health care....you just lost both... The Job market sucks, even if you get a job your looking at for many, a 25% or more pay cut and less benifits as well.

Now does it not make sense to make those who could pay for it, but choose not to...pay for it? those who it would be very very hard on, we help...and those who just simply can't pay for it ( who are legal citizens) we where we can pay for it all? Vs some black and white pay for it youself or die in the street ( no saying you can still get treatment does not count, someone is still paying for that often far more costly treatment

I wish evryone who thinks health care is some kind of privilage for those with income could try lossing there job threw no fault of there own, and paying for health care after that...and add to that a family member has a preexisting condidion that requires expensive health care coverage to stay in any type of health, or possibly stay alive.....

I would then ask how after going threw that, if they think well given the choice of health care reform, I would rather had no health care while I was short cash and watched my loved ones suffer...rather then ask for help from the goverment....I wounder how many of those proud people would break and more likey how fast they would be asking.....

working 2 jobs and not able to afford health care....I did that for years

Lost health care becuse of slow econ and loss of job? had that as well

Loved one who needed expensive care, already deep in debt with the bills...losing job that provided her health care....had that as well ( she was very lucky on how she got threw that time)

there is personal responsibility....but what about our responsibility to fellow Americans, to people? Sometimes I think the right forgets about that....sometimes I wounder if the right would even allow for help for all kids uner 18 to have full coverage regardless....or if that is to Marxist for them as well.

Big Rob, this is not aimed at you, just a general statement that your post provded a change to talk about that was related

Pocket,

When you file your taxes do you take deductions?

 

[GenSeneca]

Well its nice that you care...so long as you don't have to do anything about it.

That's correct, an individual should not have to, i.e., should not be threated with force to make a "charitable" donation. Individuals should have the freedom to choose whether or not to provide such assistance.

but screw you, its my money and I have to keep it all to myself.

Nobody will put a gun to your head and force you to keep your money, force is only necessary to make you give it away when you choose not to.

Seems for you, outside the Military, its Evey man for himself...

The rights of every individual need to be respected by men and protected by government. Only those who initiate the use of force should be threatened with force, or have force used against them. To use force against individuals who have threatened no one, and violated no ones rights, for the redistribution of wealth is an immoral act.

Seems to me you want every man a slave to his neighbor.

At one point do you think we should care enough about the health of Fellow Americans, its worth it to open your precious check book and help?

As I've said, that should be for each individual to decide for himself. Nobody threatens you with force and mandates that you to assist your friends, you choose to do so.

So far, you have offered only emotional appeals to defend your position. I should feel bad for the homeless, so bad that I not only don't mind having a gun to my head forcing me to contribute, but bad enough that I join you in demanding everyone have the choice be taken away, that a gun be pointed at everyones head so nobody can refuse to contribute.

You dodge my other questions, please answer this one...

Would you describe the act of using force against helpless victims for the benefit of a particular group to be; ethical, moral, noble, justified, compassionate? If none of those apply, then on what grounds do you claim such acts are acceptable?

 

[pocketfullofshells]

That's correct, an individual should not have to, i.e., should not be threated with force to make a "charitable" donation. Individuals should have the freedom to choose whether or not to provide such assistance.


Nobody will put a gun to your head and force you to keep your money, force is only necessary to make you give it away when you choose not to.


The rights of every individual need to be respected by men and protected by government. Only those who initiate the use of force should be threatened with force, or have force used against them. To use force against individuals who have threatened no one, and violated no ones rights, for the redistribution of wealth is an immoral act.

Seems to me you want every man a slave to his neighbor.


As I've said, that should be for each individual to decide for himself. Nobody threatens you with force and mandates that you to assist your friends, you choose to do so.

So far, you have offered only emotional appeals to defend your position. I should feel bad for the homeless, so bad that I not only don't mind having a gun to my head forcing me to contribute, but bad enough that I join you in demanding everyone have the choice be taken away, that a gun be pointed at everyones head so nobody can refuse to contribute.

You dodge my other questions, please answer this one...

Would you describe the act of using force against helpless victims for the benefit of a particular group to be; ethical, moral, noble, justified, compassionate? If none of those apply, then on what grounds do you claim such acts are acceptable?

All of them.

And yes, man must be a slave its neighbor because for some reason I think health care should be something we should all have...Because I don't think your health care should be tied to your income and jobs status...so if you happen to lose your job, or by poor, you can go beg in the street because god help us, we can't have any taxes to help people , its evil and makes you feel like a slave.

Feel free to move to the nation on earth that does not collect taxes to help those in need...Let us know when you find one...now why is that? why is it every nation worth a spit has that?

But you cry about your poor taxes...while you pay more money for health care then any industrial nation on earth, and so many in our nation have none.. I find our system Immoral, but maybe the only way to get you to care is, to make you think you can save a buck.

as for how much of a percent of my income I donate ? I have no idea..I don't keep track, I don't make enough money to right it off on taxes even if I could. I also have a small savings account set , and on of the reasons I have it, is for my friend in case she needs help..I know she would never ask for it, because that is how she is, but I know there could come a time she needs it and I can get it to her sister . And no I don't need the threat of force to help them...but also I don't have the means to help them with everything myself. I can't come up with the 10s of thousands of dollars needed for the experimental surgery she had that could have saved her life...oddly my income does not offer me that chance...

 

[GenSeneca]

All of them.

Then why are you unable to make a case for using force to redistribute wealth as being; ethical, moral, noble, justified, compassionate?

man must be a slave

That is Collectivism's most basic precept.

I don't think your health care should be tied to your income and jobs status...

What about housing, food, clothing and everything else?

The reality that you refuse to accept is that need will always outweigh ability. Every nation that has tried to evade that reality has failed.

Feel free to move to the nation on earth that does not collect taxes to help those in need...

That would be a veritable Shangri La compared to your nightmare utopia of a welfare state that steamrolls over its victims rights in the name of the common good.

But you cry about your poor taxes...

Unlike you, I am a consistent defender of our individual rights. On one hand, you complain about your rights being violated to provide you with physical security, on the other hand, you beg the government to violate your rights to provide you with economic and health security.

while you pay more money for health care then any industrial nation on earth, and so many in our nation have none..

We pay more than any other industrialized nation for education too, clearly we're not getting our money's worth.

I find our system Immoral,

The current system? So do I, but certainly for different reasons.

but maybe the only way to get you to care is, to make you think you can save a buck.

No attempt has ever been made to convince me that government run health care can save money. I've had plenty of people, like yourself, accuse me of being selfish and uncaring, people use ad hominems, guilt-filled emotional appeals, logical fallacies galore, but not a single one of you has even attempted to explain why we should trade our rights for security.

as for how much of a percent of my income I donate ? I have no idea..I don't keep track,

How about the percentage of taxes you currently pay? How high can government raise that percentage before you would complain?

I can't come up with the 10s of thousands of dollars needed for the experimental surgery she had that could have saved her life...

This goes to what I was saying earlier in the post: Need will always outweigh ability - always. The more you take to fill people's needs, the greater the needs of the people will grow. Until you recognize and accept this reality, you will continue to believe that sanctioning government to violate individual rights is not only practical but ethical, moral, noble, justified and compassionate.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

Then why are you unable to make a case for using force to redistribute wealth as being; ethical, moral, noble, justified, compassionate?


That is Collectivism's most basic precept.


What about housing, food, clothing and everything else?

The reality that you refuse to accept is that need will always outweigh ability. Every nation that has tried to evade that reality has failed.


That would be a veritable Shangri La compared to your nightmare utopia of a welfare state that steamrolls over its victims rights in the name of the common good.


Unlike you, I am a consistent defender of our individual rights. On one hand, you complain about your rights being violated to provide you with physical security, on the other hand, you beg the government to violate your rights to provide you with economic and health security.


We pay more than any other industrialized nation for education too, clearly we're not getting our money's worth.


The current system? So do I, but certainly for different reasons.


No attempt has ever been made to convince me that government run health care can save money. I've had plenty of people, like yourself, accuse me of being selfish and uncaring, people use ad hominems, guilt-filled emotional appeals, logical fallacies galore, but not a single one of you has even attempted to explain why we should trade our rights for security.


How about the percentage of taxes you currently pay? How high can government raise that percentage before you would complain?


This goes to what I was saying earlier in the post: Need will always outweigh ability - always. The more you take to fill people's needs, the greater the needs of the people will grow. Until you recognize and accept this reality, you will continue to believe that sanctioning government to violate individual rights is not only practical but ethical, moral, noble, justified and compassionate.

And until you have a loved one get there care taken away, Denied, or get sick and not be able to afford it for reasons outside there control....maybe then you will get it.

 

[GenSeneca]

And until you have a loved one get there care taken away, Denied, or get sick and not be able to afford it for reasons outside there control....maybe then you will get it.

Why do you not accept such emotional appeals from people trying to convince you to give up your rights for physical security? Or do you...

Perhaps if you lost a loved one in a terrorist attack that could have been prevented by allowing government to violate a few rights, maybe then you will get it.

Have you changed your mind now on giving up your rights for security?