Tag: responsibility

Categories
culture

Promiscuity Culture is a War on Women

EoS

In a mere seven sentences, the latter part of this article exposes how a culture of promiscuity constitutes a real war on women in four points.

In work done by sociologist Paula England, more than half of college women surveyed reported feeling less respected by men after casual sex. Meanwhile, college men are less interested than women in a relationship both before and after sex. In addition, more women reported highly unsatisfying sexual encounters, often feeling that they were treated as sexual objects by the men involved.

Yet they continued to have casual sex anyway, because when the cost of sex is low, women feel enormous pressure to give in. Many men even expect this–so much so that survey data indicate 3-5 percent of college women are victims of rape or attempted rape every year.

Yet the victimization doesn’t end there. When contraception fails, whether after consensual casual sex or an alcohol-fueled dorm-rape, men turn to abortion as a way to mitigate their responsibility.

Let’s go beyond my initial “well, duh” reaction and explore the why behind and the implications coming from each of these points.

Continue reading “Promiscuity Culture is a War on Women”
Categories
culture

Shifting Responsibility in Sexual Assault

14469576597_5bfe43b89e_k
Photo by Eric Parker

While I fully agree with the basic premise of this article that blaming the victim is inappropriate I think the article perpetuates the longstanding tradition of oversimplifying the fundamental issue. Here are two examples of that. First:

Males and females alike must know they are responsible for their bodies and their actions — that they have an unassailable right to decide whether someone else can touch them or not. They have a right to be safe. And they have an absolute duty to respect those rights in others.

At first glance that’s all true but it’s obviously oversimplified because stating that everyone has an absolute duty to respect the right of others to decide whether someone else can touch them or not hints that people ought to be able to rely on those around them to uphold that absolute duty. In other words, nothing the victim chooses should bear any scrutiny because the aggressor had an absolute duty. To say that how a potential victim dresses, acts, or talks has no bearing on the actions of potential aggressors is naive at best. While the aggressor should bear full responsibility for their actions, we must acknowledge that aggressors rarely choose their victims at random. The vast majority of the time they will be seeking some specific characteristics or vulnerabilities in their victims and the dress, speech, and actions of the potential victims will play into their calculations regarding whether any given target is the kind of victim they would seek.

Continue reading “Shifting Responsibility in Sexual Assault”
Categories
politics

Incentives to Get Off Welfare

Another spinoff from the discussion about Equality Under the Law clicked a switch in my brain. Nothing that Anti-PC Infidel says in his post should surprise anyone who has seen the discussion already, but for some reason the following statement made a connection to another issue that I have struggled to resolve for a long time:

This is often combined with the sin of destroying the recipients of {welfare} by encouraging them to be lazy and unproductive, irresponsible and greedy, by putting them on the dole.

I have long wished for some way to make it more difficult to vote for those who do not care to take the time to become informed. The thought struck me that we could make the right to vote contingent on paying at least as much in taxes as we receive in government handouts. This does not directly solve my original conundrum, but it would give incentive to those receiving welfare to find a way to become independent from government handouts if they desire to vote. Essentially, in addition to current requirements for voting, the payment of taxes equal to or in excess of any money received as welfare, food stamps, social security, unemployment benefits, rental assistance, etc. would give each person the right – like a shareholder – to vote in elections. This same rule should probably apply to board members of corporations that receive subsidies from the federal government as well.

I recognize that some will complain that such a plan would favor Republicans since poor people are statistically more likely to vote Democratic, but I would appreciate it if arguments for and against were framed in a way that was independent of party politics.

Categories
culture politics

One Good Decision

I would not try to claim that one good decision can negate a series of very bad choices, but I think that Michael Rodriguez deserves to be acknowledged for his choice to skip an endless series of appeals. Instead he has chosen to pay the only price he can for the crimes he has comitted. I think that many people can learn a lesson from this.

We live in a country governed by laws and we should stand accountable for the choices that we make. We should not seek to shirk our accountability for any reason, whether because the price of our choices is to high or because we feel we are above the law.

Thanks to Scott for sharing one good example and one poor example of accountability.

Categories
National politics

Anti Universal Coverage

This came along before I started reading the Cato blog regularly but I am definitely a member of The Anti-Universal Coverage Club.

  1. Health policy should focus on making health care of ever-increasing quality available to an ever-increasing number of people.
  2. “Universal coverage” could be achieved only by forcing everyone to buy health insurance or by having government provide health insurance to all, neither of which is desirable.
  3. In a free society, people should have the right to refuse health insurance.
  4. If governments must subsidize those who cannot afford medical care, they should be free to experiment with different types of subsidies (cash, vouchers, insurance, public clinics & hospitals, uncompensated care payments, etc.) and tax exemptions, rather than be forced by a policy of “universal coverage” to subsidize people via “insurance.”

That does not mean that I am opposed to everyone having access to health care, but a mandate that every person buy insurance or that the government will pay for insurance (by taxing “the rich” naturally) is contrary to the principles of individual liberty and personal responsibility.

Categories
National politics

An Average American Perspective

If you know who Lawrence Lessig is you will probably agree with me that he has proven himself to be much more intelligent than the average American citizen. If you don’t know who he is then you’ll have to take my word for it. I read an interview he did for National Review Online and I think that in explaining his personal political view he has captured the essence of the political views of any average American.

I think we’ve got to recognize that the way the system has functioned is to insinuate regulation in all sorts of places that aren’t necessary in order to fuel this political machine of fundraising. There’s this great speech of Ronald Reagan’s in 1965 where he talks about how every democracy fails, because once people realize they can vote themselves premiums, that’s what they’re going to do, and they’ll bankrupt the nation. Well, he had it half right, in the sense there’s a system where people realize they can vote themselves the benefits and destroy the economy. But it’s not the poor who gathered together and created massive force in Washington to distribute income to them. It’s this weird cabal of politicians and special-interest insiders that have achieved this effect. Basically, they can pervert the economy and growth in ways that protect and benefit certain interests.

I’ve read National Review from the age of twelve. I’m a liberal Democrat and I’m proud to be called a liberal Democrat. But the core values that true National Review people talk about in this regulatory context are ones that I understand and in many contexts would wholeheartedly endorse. . .

For example, one of the things that I think is outrageous about what’s happened in the recent past is that most of the kind of distortions that I would point to and say, “We’ve got to fix this,” are distortions that were shifting wealth and benefits to the richest in our society. I’m not talking about tax cuts — that’s a totally separate issue. I’m just talking about regulatory and fiscal structures, successful efforts to shift wealth from the middle to the top.

I find that wrong. And responsibility in my view is that those who are wealthiest, in the strongest position, shouldn’t be using their power to further benefit themselves, using their power over government to benefit themselves. At a minimum, they should bear the burden as much as anybody else and more than that, they should take the view that their responsibility is to make sure the worst off in society have some opportunity. And that means taking care of education, making sure public education functions in the way it is intended to function, and to make sure that health-care systems function in the way that is most efficient. All of these things are the focus of the Democrats right now. I think can be understood as extensions of what it means to be responsible members of society. . .

I’m not apologizing that I believe there is a role for the state. But I am going to say that you have to structure it so that it’s not captured by special interests and being perverted from a minimally intrusive, efficient regulation necessary into a protect-the-most-powerful-class-against-competition regulation.

I think if you look across the history of regulation, you get this time after time. Look at copyright regulation. It is a massive invasion in the innovative process that has been pushed and extended by special interests inside Washington, who have done nothing more than try to use government to protect their business models against new forms of competition. And I think you can see this in a hundred different areas.

I don’t think a liberal should shy away from saying we understand government gets captured. That’s a truth that political scientists have taught us from the day FDR went to Washington — we should learn from that and we should try to respond to that not by saying, therefore there shouldn’t be government. I think in places there ought to be government, but by being really clear to get rid of regulations of government where they’re not serving anything except special interests that happen to have the power to get them into place. (emphasis mine)

I would boil this all down to “there is a place for government regulation in various aspects of society but we must be very vigilant to stop the natural tendency for those regulatory efforts to become warped and corrupted.” I would also emphasize the fact that it is the responsibility of the wealthiest, those in the strongest position as Lessig stated, to do what they can to ensure that those who are the worst off have the opportunity to improve themselves through education and that they have access to basic services such as food, shelter, and health care services.

Note that it is not the responsibility of government to force the wealthy and strong to do this. Note also that it is implied that it is the responsibility of those in the worst situations to take the opportunities available to them. They must be free to shun those opportunities (because sometimes they will).

I believe that the only thing that really divides most average Americans are how much they do or don’t believe the two notes I have listed. This is a far cry from the efforts of Newt Gingrich with his poll derived Platform of the American People – this is just common sense articulated by an uncommon man.

Categories
culture pictures politics

Our Chinese Finger Trap

Socialism is like a Chinese finger trap. Playing with it just a bit look harmless and even fun, but once you start on that road it much easier to get further trapped than it is to free yourself.

Chinese Finger Trap

Image based on stuck for lyfe by Chris Martin.

I read a great example of this in the comments on an article about some proposed seatbelt legislation – specifically the following interchange:

No mandate please | 8:43 a.m. Feb. 14, 2008

If I don’t want to wear a seatbelt, that’s my business. But the sponsors of this bill will cry…”it’s about safety”. Let’s all be honest. Bottom line…it’s not about safety. It’s about revenue. It’s about mining the drivers in Utah for more money over a silly (soon to be) law.

Legislators should stick to real issues. Seatbelt laws are unconstitutional.

Anonymous | 9:06 a.m. Feb. 14, 2008

How many people out there are not willing to wear a seatbelt but more than willing to sue the insurance company for injuries sustained for not wearing a seatbelt.

Anonymous | 9:18 a.m. Feb. 14, 2008

It is your business as long as you don’t expect Utah taxpayers to pick up your medical bills if you are out of work or disabled. Sort of like a smoker. Do it if you want but don’t expect me to pay your bills if you end up with cancer.

Really? | 9:18 a.m. Feb. 14, 2008

Do you really think that not wearing a seat bealt is just your business? Let’s say you don’t have insurance, like many Utahns, who is going to pay your medical bills? You will probably end up on Medicaid and the tax payers will have to pay for you… now let’s say you do have insurance. Do you think there is a possibility that my insurance rates will go up because of your expensive medical bills? Now let’s say you have a wife and kids, and you die due to your neglect, what happens to them? They may go on public assistance as well. They start getting Social Security death benefits. Can you see that more is at stake than “your business”?

YES REALLY | 9:38 a.m. Feb. 14, 2008

Hey Really… Yes I think it is just my business or whoever it is that chooses to not wear a seatbelt. You have a good point on the insurance statement, but that is just one of many things that could make your rates go up or have people get on public assistance. People can start getting Social Security death benefits from anything that might take someones life. I have to agree with the above comment, I do believe its not about safety, it really is about the money. We should have a choice whether or not to wear a seatbelt. Remember this is America.

Sagacious Inquisitor | 9:58 a.m. Feb. 14, 2008

To Really.
Sadly, your comments are based on the Socialistic notion that somehow society is responsible for me. Granted, Socialism is the dangerous system into which we have already slipped too far.

Once we already have a little socialism – such as government paying the costs of health care for those who can’t afford the choices they have made – it gets easy to use that as a lever to argue that the choices they make are no longer theirs to make but are within the reach of government to make those choices for them. The problem is that each time such an argument is made it becomes that much more difficult to be free to make our own choices – responsible for the consequences of our choices, and not responsible for the choices of others.

It is too easy to paint proponents of individual responsibility as uncaring towards those who are less fortunate than they are, but that is an unfair characterization of the position. I am fully in favor of helping someone in need. I absolutely desire that doctors be paid for their time and effort on behalf of people who cannot afford the health care they need.

The difference is that I believe we do a disservice to those who receive such help when the help comes from a nameless, faceless, impersonal government agency rather than coming from caring neighbors or relatives. Not only do they feel no urgency to improve their situations or to repay the kindness they have received in their time of need when aid comes from such an impersonal source, but it is impossible for government to fully tailor that aid to their specific situation which opens up the misfortune of some people to be used as an opportunity for gain by other unscrupulous people. With caring individuals involved in rendering the needed assistance there are greater safeguards against those who would take such advantage and more incentive for those receiving aid to lift themselves as much as possible.

If the vehicle of government could be used to eliminate social ills such as poverty or homelessness we would have found that solution after decades of government intervention. For all the efforts to use government for those noble ends we show little if any progress.

Categories
culture life

Fireworks and Personal Responsibility

It doesn’t take much thought to realize that a hot, dry summer does not mix well with fireworks. Governor Hunstman called on cities to ban personal fireworks because of our conditions this year. The Deseret News Editorial on the idea notes that legal fireworks seldom create problems. The fact that we make laws which we don’t enforce encourages unlawful behavior. We should not be waiting for the government to tell us what is smart.

This situation, and my personal feelings leave me in a bind. Tomorrow all the cousins are getting together to celebrate and the families decided that we would purchase fireworks jointly instead of individually. None of us take the time to purchase illegal fireworks (which are expensive and pale in comparison to the professional displays anyway) but with the extreme fire season we are having this year I believe that it is irresponsible to act as if personal fireworks are some inalienable right. If it were not for the fact that our family has already agreed to do fireworks together I would choose not to do any personal fireworks this year – I’d just stick to the professional displays.