Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
That is because collective rsponsiblity is waht governamnt is suppoed to do;but fails. The responsibiliyt of the individaul is to produce a product that affords hin a living and at teh same time contribute to the nation welth. The largest group that fails in both cases is the entitlement takers. Anyone who works and produces more than they consume are the givers and responsible.That is opur problem ;too many takers for teh number of givers.
No, wrong. Our collective responsibility is to put back in something commensurate with what our freedom and liberty has allowed us to take out.
All "private property" was once the collective property of all the people. It was given, at no cost, to whomever got there first to grab it. What is the collective responsibility of property owners?
To keep their areas "neat and tidy" (from What I Learned in Kindergarten).
Collective responsibility to me is that if we expect Social Security and Medicaid to take care of our parents/grandparents so that we don't have to, then we better well be willing to pay for it - and not pass payment on to our children.
It also means that if we want a military that is too big for our military leaders, but not big enough for our congressman, then we should fork over the cash.
If you are not willing to pay tax to cover the above two examples, then you better be willing to help out your parents/grandparents and also accept a smaller military.
What, exactly, do you mean by "collective responsibility"?
Collective responsibility: the obligation that we, as citizens, have for providing public goods and services. There seems to be a prevail argument that the paying for public goods and services is a violation of individual rights and as such imply that the individual isn't responsible for the public welfare.
I would argue that it is one thing to argue against the provision of any specific public good or service, but to argue that taxes, or even public service are a violation of individual rights completely ignores, or seeks to nullify, any individual responsibility to the greater society.
I think that is making assumptions, though. Most conservative friends of mine spend a lot of time and money helping their communities, volunteering, and donating to charity.
I think that instead of rebutting the assumption you have instead established it. Spending time and money on those projects, agencies and causes that are of interest to the individual, no matter how worthy, is not the same as fulfilling the collective responsibilities of citizenship.
So one has a right to travel upon public roads and waterways but no responsibility to their construction and or maintenance?
One has a responsibility to contribute to public services, but they should be free to do so in their own way. Money( via taxation) should not be the only option. Local roads should be maintained on a local level, and the option to contribute via physical labor should be there as well. Everything we have could easily be obtained with just a small contribution from the local people in any given area. Big government is more of a burden than a helping hand. Ever notice how state road crews will take forever to complete a road project, but private contractors will have the same job done in half the time and probably even come in under budget. We could accomplish the same things on a local level and not involve the larger government entities at all.
Freedom means being able to govern yourself, without the constant intervention of Big Brother. The ability to govern ourselves has been traded in favor of a large government presence, because your average American citizen doesn't want to do their part to retain their freedom and sovereignty. If Americans would step up to the plate and take more of their responsibilites back on their own shoulders, we could reduce the government back to the managable size it was meant to be in the first place. Virtually all governing responsibility should be returned to the states, with the Federal Government resuming the role it was originally meant to play. It has grown into an uncontrollable monster, thanks to the general malaise and laziness of the American people. If we will resume our roles as truly free people with the power to govern ourselves, we can hold our own and take care of ourselves.
The largest group that fails in both cases is the entitlement takers.
And who would those individuals be?
The 31 million retirees who paid into the system all of their working lives? The 2.9 million surviving spouses and children? The 3.8 million receiving
welfare? I think that from the above stated numbers, only about 7 million Americans make up this entitlement class; a pretty small percentage of Americans, I would think.
There is NO collective responsibility attached to the exercise of rights, save not violating the rights of others.
Right to life = harmless activity in support of one's life
Personal liberty = Right to travel upon public roads and waterways
Natural liberty = Freedom to think, decide, and act upon one's private property
Darn, this would have been my "post of the day" yesterday.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
