Responsibility and the law

[Canto]

Are we (Americans) as a society applying the law to far too many things?

Are we using the law to place far less emphasis on personal responsibility?

I was thinking about this after the topless coffee shop news thread and why people even question wether this is legal or not. It's not my kind of thing, I really have no interest in the establishment and would probably never go to such a place after the first time.

I could argue that seat belt laws are superfluous because that would be another case of personal responsibility.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

Re: Resposibility and the law

I would say that you are taking an incredibly simplistic stance on an exceedingly complicated issue... or, really, thousands of individual issues. You can point out individual silly laws, but often they have nothing to do with "personal responsibility" AT ALL, and don't invalidate the idea of laws in general.

The most important thing to remember, and the most mature way of looking at things, is to remember that you're not an individual in a vacuum. You're a member of a society. Maximizing individual freedom sounds good on paper, but it is pure garbage in practical application.

 

[Canto]

Re: Resposibility and the law

I understand the value of laws that are good for society, but laws that only effect the user are what I question. If I dont wear a seat belt, I dont hurt others by not wearing it, I hurt myself (yes, we DO pay for an idiot not wearing a seat belt in the sense of taxes, I get that). The government shouldnt be in the business of enforcing common sense. A law that says cars must have seat belts is fine, but a law that says you MUST wear one seems to be extra.

I question laws about common sense and personal responsibility(More so when they are made with a definitive moral enforcement behind them)

 

[ImprobableJoe]

Re: Resposibility and the law

I understand the value of laws that are good for society, but laws that only effect the user are what I question. If I dont wear a seat belt, I dont hurt others by not wearing it, I hurt myself (yes, we DO pay for an idiot not wearing a seat belt in the sense of taxes, I get that). The government shouldnt be in the business of enforcing common sense. A law that says cars must have seat belts is fine, but a law that says you MUST wear one seems to be extra.

I question laws about common sense and personal responsibility(More so when they are made with a definitive moral enforcement behind them)

There's really no such thing as "laws that only effect the user" in real life. That's some sort of weird adolescent delusion that has become "conventional wisdom" thanks to the efforts of various sociopaths over the years. Usually they are the same folks who reject the idea of the "social contract," "general welfare," and "the common good."

What they really mean is "fuck you, I've got mine" and they cover it in dishonest appeals to "personal responsibility" because most people would reject the more honest "self-interest to the detriment of others."

 

[Canto]

In a sense, yes, fuck you I've got mine works for me. Social contract? I wont kill you, you wont kill me kinda thing?

 

[You]

Re: Resposibility and the law

Of course, not all laws are benevolent, effective, or the ideal solution for a given social ill. Sometimes, laws are downright malicious, used to impose a specific worldview by moralistic authoritarians. As Joe said, it's a complex issue. There are just way too many behaviors that *could* be legislated, and different ways of legislating them.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

In a sense, yes, fuck you I've got mine works for me. Social contract? I wont kill you, you wont kill me kinda thing?

If "fuck you I've got mine" works for you, then you have no business in human society. *shrugs*

"Social contract" in the sense that we allow the society to restrict our individual actions, and otherwise expect individuals to contribute, for the overall health of that society. Whether you know it or not, unless you live in a mud hut on a deserted island, you benefit from the society you are a member of. In exchange for that benefit, you are expected to surrender a certain amount of autonomy, pay taxes, etc. This is voluntary to an extent: you are welcome to renounce your citizenship and leave any time you like.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

Let's take the example given in the OP, and rip it apart as best we can, shall we?

Seat belts have been show to save lives and reduce injuries overall, according to the best evidence we have available to date.(let's ignore fringe crackpots and anecdotes for the purpose of this discussion!)

We live in a society where we have various and sundry insurance programs, both public and private, that we all pay into in order to take care of people or their surviving families when accidents happen. Every time there is an accident, the costs of that accident are spread across the society as a whole. We all benefit from that fact. We all benefit MORE, and pay LESS, when there are fewer accidents, fewer deaths, and fewer serious injuries. Insurance rates and medical costs don't go up as quickly, we aren't stuck raising the children of people who die in car accidents, businesses don't lose productive time from the dead/injured workers.

To increase our personal benefit from the system that protects all of us, we agree to certain rules. We are supposed to drive the speed limit, obey traffic signs and signals, and wear our seat belts, among other things. That's your personal responsibility, and also your societal responsibility.

Now, in exchange for those benefits to society (which includes you!) what do you have to give up? Wearing a seat belt isn't a burden. Of course, by following rules you are forced to accept the mature notion that you are not some sort of lone wolf rogue badass who makes his own rules... but growing up and becoming an adult has its rewards too!

 

[You]

On the other hand, we have examples like Prohibition. Not too long ago, some very wise, very moral people determined (for the good of us all!) that alcohol was bad, and only bad people drink alcohol. So they passed a law. Well, really, a law on steroids. And after that, alcohol was no longer a problem.


Oh, wait.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

On the other hand, we have examples like Prohibition. Not too long ago, some very wise, very moral people determined (for the good of us all!) that alcohol was bad, and only bad people drink alcohol. So they passed a law. Well, really, a law on steroids. And after that, alcohol was no longer a problem.
Oh, wait.

Yes, but as noted each situation is different. The difference can be seen at least in part on the ratio between benefit and burden. Saving lives by way of making people wear a little strap is a whole lot different from banning a relatively common and easy to make substance for the sake of moral absolutism.

Also note that while the prohibition on alcohol has been removed, there are plenty of rules restricting your behavior while intoxicated.

 

[You]

Yes, but as noted each situation is different. The difference can be seen at least in part on the ratio between benefit and burden. Saving lives by way of making people wear a little strap is a whole lot different from banning a relatively common and easy to make substance for the sake of moral absolutism.

I completely agree. It's an exchange. I give up my right to not have to wear the strap, and benefit from: lower insurance premiums, and a lower risk of being involved in a collision with an out-of-control vehicle. Same thing with anti-usury laws (ah, remember those? Good times!). I give up my freedom to charge someone 112% interest and, in return, I don't have to read through 23 pages of fine print every time I want to get a credit card or open a bank account to make sure the lender isn't a soulless bastard.

Also note that while the prohibition on alcohol has been removed, there are plenty of rules restricting your behavior while intoxicated.

As there should be.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

As there should be.

And somehow, having penalties for breaking the rules really doesn't interfere with personal responsibility, does it?

 

[You]

And somehow, having penalties for breaking the rules really doesn't interfere with personal responsibility, does it?

I'd argue that if you oppose laws against DWI, you are *against* personal responsibility. You are making other persons responsible (by assuming your risks) for your own actions.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

I'd argue that if you oppose laws against DWI, you are *against* personal responsibility. You are making other persons responsible (by assuming your risks) for your own actions.

I don't see how that follows.

 

[You]

I don't see how that follows.

If I drive drunk on the same road that you are driving your family upon, I am forcing you to assume a risk you haven't chosen to accept. That is making you responsible for actions that are not your own, that you do not endorse or support. I don't mean "responsible" in the sense of being held legally accountable; I mean that you and your family may suffer consequences for my actions.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

If I drive drunk on the same road that you are driving your family upon, I am forcing you to assume a risk you haven't chosen to accept. That is making you responsible for actions that are not your own, that you do not endorse or support. I don't mean "responsible" in the sense of being held legally accountable; I mean that you and your family may suffer consequences for my actions.

OK... I had a bit of a brainfart there. :lol:

 

[Aught3]

Are we using the law to place far less emphasis on personal responsibility?

Surely laws place more emphasis on personal responsibility. If you don't follow the correct or acceptable behaviour in a situation you could end up with a fine or jail time.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

Surely laws place more emphasis on personal responsibility. If you don't follow the correct or acceptable behaviour in a situation you could end up with a fine or jail time.

Good point! What is responsibility without consequence? When you take personal responsibility, it means you accept consequences for your actions. Without consequences, the entire concept of responsibility is meaningless.

 

[Aught3]

^That's a much better way to put it

In a sense, yes, fuck you I've got mine works for me.

If everyone had this attitude I think society would rapidly break-down. Unless we had some sort of law to make exploiting other people not worth the risk. Perhaps if we ever had a society with a strong social contract and everyone had compassionate and helping attitudes then some of the laws would become superfluous. It doesn't make me hopeful when the person posting the idea doesn't even have the correct attitude to make it work.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

If everyone had this attitude I think society would rapidly break-down. Unless we had some sort of law to make exploiting other people not worth the risk. Perhaps if we ever had a society with a strong social contract and everyone had compassionate and helping attitudes then some of the laws would become superfluous. It doesn't make me hopeful when the person posting the idea doesn't even have the correct attitude to make it work.

If you ever wonder about the sanity of my political views, refer back to this post.

Every political view I reject, I reject because I believe it ultimately regresses to the view you are rejecting here.