How much responsibility do you have for strangers?

Trotsky said:
Negative freedom is freedom from infringement. Liberalism is based on individual autonomy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_liberty


Conservatism is based on order/tradition. I don't know how else to explain that. Theocrats, monarchists, moral traditionalists, etc.
Click to expand...

So you don't agree that how wealth should be spent, and how much of the money you earn you should keep, etc. is a huge part of liberal and conservative identity?

Liberals want everyone to be taken care of. If one can't get what they feel entitled to, the wealthy/others must give it to them. Conservatives feel that we are responsible for ourselves and our families, and that you only get what you work for. Of course, there is much more to it than that, but social responsibility is a huge part of it.
 
zebby23 said:
I suppose. I have those same circumstances but spend very little time actually worrying about them. I also donate and help others as much as I can. Since I don't have those worries maybe I can help someone who does. That's my line of thinking.

Why would you spend time worrying about getting hit by a truck? So much that you can't be bothered to help others?
Click to expand...

Well I guess we're all different. I often wonder how my children would cope without a father. I'm a worrier!

If you would have asked me before having children what I worry about, it would have been fuck all. My responsibility and goal now is to ensure my children are safe, educated and life a happy life. Nothing else matters.
 
you should do what is right... we all know what is right, it aint rocket science

if you could have got hurt then you will be excused but people would like you a whole lot more if you had risked it

what is there not to understand about life? why is there a debate on this?
 
Trotsky said:
Negative freedom is freedom from infringement. Liberalism is based on individual autonomy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_liberty


Conservatism is based on order/tradition. I don't know how else to explain that. Theocrats, monarchists, moral traditionalists, etc.
Click to expand...

You are both correct in a way. In order to have more negative liberty you need to have less order, and a side effect of having less order is more equality. The most extreme left philosophy is Anarchy, in which there is no order and everyone is 100% equal. The most extreme right philosophy is a monarchy where there is strict order and very little equality.

So which ever way you either of you viewed it would bring you to the same place in the end.
 
You have no responsibility for strangers. But I think the question is only 1/3 of the conversation. While you have no responsibility for strangers nor should you try to intentionally cause them harm or take advantage of them. And you do have a responsibility to your nation.
 
none outside agreed upon mutually beneficial arrangements like national defense, emergency services etc.
 
I remember first living in a city I gave spare change to homeless people. I was absolutely mortified the first time I saw one passed out on the sidewalk and couldn't believe that everyone, like 100 people, just walked past a guy that might be dead and ignored him.

I eventually had to come to terms that I was only giving money to people that were spending it on drugs. I also had to come to terms that if I tried to help every passed out homeless guy, I'd be late to work everyday, get fired, and become homeless myself.

It's great to help people. But there are limits.
 
superpunch said:
I remember first living in a city I gave spare change to homeless people. I was absolutely mortified the first time I saw one passed out on the sidewalk and couldn't believe that everyone, like 100 people, just walked past a guy that might be dead and ignored him.

I eventually had to come to terms that I was only giving money to people that were spending it on drugs. I also had to come to terms that if I tried to help every passed out homeless guy, I'd be late to work everyday, get fired, and become homeless myself.

It's great to help people. But there are limits.
Click to expand...
^ ^ ^ Just wanted to add, if it's serious, like 100 degrees out, of course you have to help. But you can't save the world.
 
superpunch said:
^ ^ ^ Just wanted to add, if it's serious, like 100 degrees out, of course you have to help. But you can't save the world.
Click to expand...
What do you mean have to help? What if this individual wants to die and you're actively doing the opposite in helping him(or her) attain his(or her) goals?

You shouldn't assume people need or want your help.
 
zebby23 said:
Jesus may disagree
Click to expand...
Not conservative Jesus ;)

c78b29d76bedc57ebfc128098a9075df--republican-jesus-jesus-loves.jpg
 
teach a man to fish and they can feed their family forever. teach a man to take handouts and you become Europe.
 
It would be nice if we could just provide for everyone and eliminate suffering. Since that's not possible I assume someone who suggests it has an ulterior motive.

Do your job and treat others as you would like to be treated. I think if everyone did that we'd be a lot better off.
 
Armbars said:
Well I guess we're all different. I often wonder how my children would cope without a father. I'm a worrier!

If you would have asked me before having children what I worry about, it would have been fuck all. My responsibility and goal now is to ensure my children are safe, educated and life a happy life. Nothing else matters.
Click to expand...
Life insurance is not optional for parents.
 
mommas homeboy said:
If we have "extra" money, we can donate to the poor....

So are millionaires scumbags because they spend their money on cars and private jets, instead of feeding, and saving the lives of innocent children starving in Africa?

And if they're not scumbags, are they immoral, or cruel for meeting much more than their basic needs, instead of saving lives?
Click to expand...

the question is more complex than that though.

Are you really helping when you simply through money at others problems? sure you might help that one person but you might also institutionalize problems and create a welfare state where the people in charge of it have zero incentive to end it and every reason to grow it and increase budgets so they can make more money.
 
You do have the responsibility at least with whatever you consider your people. That's why every man with decency, character and loyalty to the homeland is a socialists.
It is a fortune to help, which rewards those who commit themselves to the socialist state. A commitment that needs to be strengthen in every new crisis.
The effort put into a socialist state is so much more than charity. We don't tell the rich to give to the poor. Instead we say European people help yourself.
Everyone has to help if rich or poor. Everyone has to see that there is always someone in a worse situation than me and that person I have to help as fellow European.
 
Well I just finished the hands on portion of my CPR exam on tuesday, just waiting for the written portion...
 
A state should have responsibility toward state citiziens, from the poor to the rich

Import problems from outside is about betray this very basic concept
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,236,405
Messages
55,418,319
Members
174,765
Latest member
durbanik916

Share this page

Back
Top