Political Discussions
Collective vs. Individual Responsibillity
Posted by jeremyjanson • 10/17/09 • Subscribe to this Discussion [RSS] • Report This Topic
Topics: conservatism, liberalism, morals, obama, philosophy, responsibility
NOTE: I take the definition of responsibility to be the moral value of honorably and benevolently taking care of what has been entrusted to you.
One of the major themes of the Obama adminstration has been the notion of a national responsibility, a duty to regular citizens to promote a national agenda. From his inaugural address:
For context:
"Time and again these men and women struggled and sacrificed and worked till their hands were raw so that we might live a better life. They saw America as bigger than the sum of our individual ambitions, greater than all the differences of birth or wealth or faction."
Main:
"For everywhere we look, there is work to be done. The state of our economy calls for action, bold and swift. And we will act, not only to create new jobs, but to lay a new foundation for growth. We will build the roads and bridges, the electric grids and digital lines that feed our commerce and bind us together. We'll restore science to its rightful place, and wield technology's wonders to raise health care's quality and lower its cost. We will harness the sun and the winds and the soil to fuel our cars and run our factories. And we will transform our schools and colleges and universities to meet the demands of a new age. All this we can do. All this we will do." -Barack Obama
It seems to me that the chief flaw with this philosophy is the idea that somebody can be responsible for something they are not in control of. If something is not in your power, how, morally, are you responsible for it?
This thought came to me when eating dinner with a friend. He wasn't very familiar with Obama's actions with regards to the economy, so we spoke about the Stimulus bill. I used, as a metaphor, going to a restaurant and leaving without paying the bill to explain how most Businesses are probably treating Obama's stimulus, collecting profit on relatively high priced consumption now and planning on ditching future investment before the bill (tax increases) come in to effect, and he said: "I don't roll that way. They're violating their responsibility."
And, if the metaphor held completely, he'd be right - but actually my metaphor sucked! See, unlike a customer at a restaurant, these companies did not choose to order food. The plates were brought out to them, without asking, expecting them to pay it back later. And even if many companies did lobby for these stimulus provisions, how do you know that EVERY SINGLE company wanted them? If even one company would not have chosen to take that money, they are not morally responsible for paying it back, though for the sake of society they may be morally obligated.
Now, this line of reasoning can be taken too far. I realize that. I'm no Anarchist and I'm not a Randian either. But it's a necessary evil that we must handle what is not our fault, not a moral responsibility, and there is no good in making people more helpless. There are other more philosophically sound reasons to support a liberal agenda, including correcting for an inherently instable market to make us more secure, and dealing with genuine collective needs and places where, like it or not, we have to cooperate simply for survival, but this idea of a great national responsibility, responsibility where there is no power or choice and never can be, is false.
User Comments
-
Well said jeremy. I shudder at the thought of a compulsory national "volunteer" force, such as was bandied about during the campaign. The entire notion of working for the collective goes against, in my opinion, everything that America was founded on.
An entire nation of people living up to their individual and family responsibilities, helping others when and where they can and going about their daily lives is the best formula for a successful nation that I can think of. Of course this does not address industry or politics or governing and I know that. It is simply a statement of a philosophy. -
Most of what could rightly be called collective reponsibility falls within the realm of civic engagement--truly taking part in the democratic process. Otherwise we tend to fall into the trap of isolation that deToqueville speaks of leading to a greater dependence on a central government.
I have noticed that Obama seems to take the idea of collective responsibility a bit further, going back to his 2004 speech at the DNC:
> ' If there is a child on the south side of Chicago who can’t read, that matters to me, even if it’s not my child. If there is a senior citizen somewhere who can’t pay for their prescription drugs, and having to choose between medicine and the rent, that makes my life poorer, even if it’s not my grandparent. If there’s an Arab American family being rounded up without benefit of an attorney or due process, that threatens my civil liberties.
> It is that fundamental belief -- It is that fundamental belief: I am my brother’s keeper. I am my sister’s keeper that makes this country work. It’s what allows us to pursue our individual dreams and yet still come together as one American family.
E pluribus unum: "Out of many, one." '
www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/convention2004/barackobama2004dnc.htm-
Understood. Although on the flip side, "E pluribus unum" was a saying conceived when America was still 13 largely English with some Dutch colonies before the extremely individualistic Western States, and Especially Texas, California, New Mexico and Washington and Oregon, redefined America. Remember, those states weren't built by the same people. The first 3 were mostly Spanish, Spaniards who were far more individualistic and independence and land-seeking then their Mexican and Central American brethren from day one, with some American immigrants in Northern California and Texas south of the Rio Naches (who were fed up with the East Coast.) You don't really understand American politics, and especially conservatism, until you read the sections in "Two Years Before the Mast" by Richard Dana describing Spanish California and a little bit of Texas history. The last two were partially English, partially Spanish (Washington more), partially Native American, and partially Texan and Californian, and all people fed up with the East Coast for various reasons.
I see what you're saying about civic engagement, although there is a third option. The third option is personal honor and purpose - people making their own judgements based on their own need for purpose in their life, and their own development and character, eliminating the corruption and societal oppression inherent in an "active" citizenry as we saw in the 1950's, which led to the 1960's with its' sheer horrendous level of abuse. That third option also probably better fits who Americans are today, and is to some degree what Sarah Palin represents to those who still know her. In this respect, I kind of see Obama as a step back to a society that was rightly discarded in 1964.
In some ways I'd say liberalism is the product of the East Coast English and conservatism is the product of the Western Spanish even though, since 1964, California, Western Washington and Western Oregon have gone liberal for the most part due to massive migration from the East, bad blood over organized labor and the Northern Pacific Railroad, and a Republican party that has abandoned Environmentalism (though some of the older parts of these states, like the OC, Shasta County, and Seattles Eastside, have remained conservative) while the Southeast, as a result of a feud over states rights, civil rights, and Southern tradition, and the Democrats abandoned Christian Morality, got captured and assimilated in to the conservative side, hence the fact that the folks in Nashville, TN dress like Cowboys. -
It also referred to the states themselves, not the citizens... but, details....
-
Oops...
-
speechwriters can't be expected to know their history, but one would hope that those who teach constitutional law would
-
Yeah really.
-
-
What troubles me about your argument is that it is based upon whether or not the stimulus funds create an obligation in those companies, when in fact I think that most people who believe there is an obligation would argue that such an obligation pre-existed the stimulus package and continues to exist independent of it. Many years ago, before things like stimulus packages were ever contemplated, communities were smaller, interdependent, and the impact one business's actions had on the whole was much clearer--and came back around to impact that business and its proprietors as well. A pharmacy offering up poisons would soon have been out of business; a company that destroyed all of the natural resources of one type in an area would have cut off his own source of income, both in terms of future materials and in terms of driving down the need or ability of his customers to purchase his goods or services. The community was seen, properly, as an interdependent entity, and moral and practical obligations were clear and supported on another.
Today, however, that is no longer true. It is far more profitable for a pharmaceutical company to determine that there is an acceptable number of people to kill in the effort to maximize profits (by their own admission) and the current mobility in the U.S. and worldwide makes it possible for companies to gut an area in any number of ways, take their quick profit, and then move on to do the same in another area or another field.
The current mortgage crisis is an excellent example of this. Reasonable people can argue all day about whether the blame falls on the brokers who sold mortgages knowing the buyers couldn't make the payments or the buyers who overcommitted, but the bottom line is that in our previous incarnation, the issue never would have arisen--and it wouldn't have arisen precisely because of that cause and effect that has been lost. A local mortgage company that would still be holding the paper when the loan collapsed would not have made those loans, particularly not in such large numbers. They wouldn't have had to think too hard about the moral obligation, because it went hand-in-hand with self-interest...hundreds of foreclosures just a few years down the road, all at the same time, would have been a disaster for the bank, and for the local economy. The banker would not have been able to--as the brokers have--take his millions or tens of millions or hundreds of millions of dollars in quick profit and get out of the way before the collapse.
Unfortunately, that's become completely disconnected and dishonesty and actions that are harmful to the rest of the community are now a plausible way to generate quick, large profits without much risk. That being the case, the morality has become disconnected as well. But to whatever extent it still exists, it has nothing to do with stimulus money.-
oh, wow... you read the whole OP? No wonder you get eyestrain...
As to that part; corporate bodies are inherently collectively responsible -
But it's a different collective, and the responsibility is not only different, it's at least sometimes mutually exclusive with the sort of community responsibility to which I was referring. For instance, when Henry Ford announced his goal of making it affordable for every American to own an automobile, his stockholders sued him and won. That was not an acceptable goal, in that his fiduciary responsibility was to his shareholders (to maximize profits) and not to the greater good.
-
well, classically corporations were supposed to exist for the public good. For instance Adam Smith in "Wealth of Nations" said:
"To establish a joint stock company... it ought to appear with the clearest evidence, that the undertaking is of the greater and more general utility than the greater part of common trades."
His friendly correspondent Edmund Burke said of the role of government:
"That the State ought to confine itself to what regards the State, or the creatures of the State, namely, the exterior establishment of its religion; its magistracy; its revenue; its military force by sea and land; the corporations that owe their existence to its fiat; in a word, to every thing that is truly and properly public, to the public peace, to the public safety, to the public order, to the public prosperity." -
@Agit8r: MadameX mostly caught this already, but a corporate body is responsible to the corporate OF ITS' OWNER, not the rest of society, just to clarify further. Whether that's a partnership or the stockholders varies depending upon the kind of corporation.
@Agit8r, second reply: Yeah but that was a long time ago when government heavily subsidized such corporations with land grants, naval escorts, et cetera. We don't do that anymore.
@MadameX: Thankful for your detailed and thoughtful reply, and for reading the entire OP. I was talking about collective responsibility, while I would consider grotesque negligence and fraudulent activity against individual responsibility. See, unlike the Stimulus, the pharmaceutical companies you speak of CHOSE to poison people or CHOSE to take actions that incompetently led to that grisly outcome, thus are in control, and are responsible. They are not responsible because of their community responsibility but because they took actions that were unjust and illegal. By comparison, what Obama is clearly referring to is a NATIONAL WILL, or as the Japanese would do, punishing an entire class for the misconduct of one child. Now, if your argument was that the specific banks that were responsible for the meltdown were held responsible of course, but may I remind you that the economy includes a lot more then one industry, a lot more then 12 people, and a lot more banks then, for all we know, may have been involved.
Sometimes I feel like when we in particular are arguing Individualism vs. Collectivism, you start seeing Individualism as Nihilism. To clarify, Nihilism is any philosophy that says nothing matters, while Individualism is any philosophy that says the individual is the source of meaning and responsibility. Individualism can still include a very healthy sense of justice and honor, of which I would consider your Pharma analogy a violation of. By comparison, any particular company may have not been in favor of the stimulus that you've now decided is their responsibility to pay back - not that actions similar to this may not from time to time be necessary, but they are inherently evil and should be recognized as such rather then celebrated as some kind of "responsibility." -
" that was a long time ago when government heavily subsidized such corporations with land grants, naval escorts, et cetera "
now we support them with land confiscation, corporate welfare, and jingoism. Tomahto, Tomayto.
edited to add: I just threw the Burke quote in there for Antics
-
@Agit8r: "now we support them with land confiscation, corporate welfare, and jingoism."
Corporate welfare they didn't sign up for in many cases, though I suppose when they have it changes things, land confiscation that they usually have to pay for when possible and should be outlawed outright, not blimey adapted to, and the Jingoism I don't believe is there, but that's okay. -
"Corporate welfare they didn't sign up for in many cases"
yes, this is why Boeing threatens to move every few years because some other state wants to build them better facilities and charge them even less taxes (if that's possible). That's also why Mark Sanford was jaunting around South America trying to offer the sweetest industrial park site for Fitesa to put their "investment in the community" on
and of course Jingoism happens. Ever heard of the "100 Orders"
www.alternet.org/world/62273/
www.uruknet.info/?p=42948 -
@Agit8r: So because Boeing does it, EVERY SINGLE corporation on the face of the earth does it? The problem with pragmatism is that you have to consider your effect on the entire rest of society.
-
Certantly not every one. Though one may wonder whether such a system is truly a competetive one when such a thing occurs.
-
Unfortunately yes. Competition between states.
-
true. sad, given that "commercial amity" was one of the two primary objects of the Union.
-
-
yeah i just wanted to throw out there that conservatism is more traditionally a reflection of autocratic governments - at least in view of international relations.-
That's European Conservatism. Anglo-American conservatism is completely different in every conceivable way except maybe with regards to social values.
-
Then I gues that would make Cheney, Rumsfeld, and W Bush all European conservatives.
-
It seems that much of the voting public is willing to support an autocrat that supports their interests
-
@libertycast1: Not exactly. Bush was a socially conservative moderate who inherited a difficult situation. He was nowhere near as tyrannical as FDR, Lincoln, John Adams or Jackson and was dealing with a situation far more complex and difficult to explain then any of these. May I remind you that the left-wing media is still alive, something Adams would've seen to. Cheney was a pro-business moderate. Rumsfeld, on the other hand, was a neoconservative, meaning he was heavily influenced by former Bolsheviks.
-
are you sure that this isn't the alternate universe thread?
-
Add Your Comment
Login to leave a message.
