Friday, 10 January 2003
|0751 - "Social responsibility" is bullshit|
From a comment mintaka made to my last entry:
[S]ocial responsibility is something real and important, especially in times of war/crisis, and people who can't be responsible end up hurting the country they often claim to love.
I reject the notion of "social responsibility" entirely. It is nothing more than leftist-speak for "behaving the way I think you should". it's an attempt to convert a difference of opinion into a failure to be a responsible member of society. It's a way to demonize others who happen to disagree with the Left's agenda. It's an attempt to close off debate by dismissing the opponent.
I will readily agree that one has duties to the society one lives in. They do not include, however, kowtowing to the current fashion of the Left, be it swearing off SUVs, or fur, or meat, or paying high taxes because one is successful.
current mood: pensive
I didn't say swearing off anything, and I didn't say anything about making snap judgements. The friend you described in the previous entry probably does get good use out of his vehicle, and that's good. That's not the type of person I was responding about. But I get the sense that you're being reactionary instead of actually trying to make a reasonable argument. I wasn't arguing at all that "all SUVs are bad and you're evil if you drive one". I was arguing that "there are some people in some situations that buy far bigger and more wasteful vehicles than they need and this behavior does contribute to the current oil crisis/war with Iraq/terror funding/etc." These are two completely different arguments, and you seem to enjoy substituting one for the other because the shallower one is easier to respond to.
"there are some people in some situations that buy far bigger and more wasteful vehicles than they need and this [...]" (Emphasis mine)
And how is another's need determined, and by whom?
Ideally, everyone should be responsible enough to make their own decisions about what they need, including realizing the consequences their decisions will have on others. This is what I'm advocating. Unfortunately, people tend only to take their own decisions into account on this, and as John Nash got a Nobel Prize for demonstrating, having everyone simply choose what's best for them without considering the consequences others will have and it will have on others ends up being detrimental. (The best solution is one that yields the greatest benefits for both the individual and the group.)
And the government has taken on the ability to ration things that the people need in times of crisis (WWII coming to mind as the greatest example). And we are in a crisis right now created largely by our own oil consumption. What I'm advocating is that people individually choose what's best for them and for the country by getting things that suit their needs but not something that is more wasteful than necessary, helping to cut down our dependency on foreign oil which we are currently buying from people who are actually aligned against us. If the people can't regulate themselves on these terms, and the oil glut continues, then it might become necessary for the government to step in and regulate things on a stricter basis--for the sake of national security. That's not something I'd like to see happen, but if enough people keep up the brute-consumption mentality that they are, it may have to become a reality.
What about, say, littering? I'm sure you'd agree that people shouldn't litter. If that's not social responsibility, what is it?