Responsibility

[Adios]

ah "evil" probably isn't the right word. you guys know I don't really believe in evil anyway. I'm using it to represent the things that humans demonize.

I was watching this documentary last night about Genetically Modified Organisms, and how traditional farmers are getting the legal squeeze put on them by Monsanto. Monsanto released its patented organisms into the wild, where they reproduced like crazy.. apparently if you have any of this genetic material on your farm, even if you never planted it, Monsanto's gonna take your farm and demand you destroy your "contaminated seed store". From one angle, Monsanto is trying to establish a genetic monopoly by forcing farmers to rely on their products. From another angle, they're just protecting their intellectual property.          /tangent

Anyway, let's get back into that steinbeck bulldozer. If you live in America, odds are, you are eating GMOs. (see: corn syrup) Is it your responsibility that all those farmers are having their livelihoods destroyed? Should these farmers be mad at you, specifically, for powering Monsanto?

If you are paying taxes in the united states, about 36% of the taxes you paid in 2009 were spent on the military and its various endeavors. Am I responsible for those guys being tortured at Gitmo? I certainly paid for it.

Or on a more local level, I paid taxes to Westchester county last year, some of which doubtlessly funded the corrupt yonkers police station. The yonkers PD is responsible for numerous acts of brutality and injustice, am I responsible for that? I could have moved and not contributed to that system, so do I bear some of the blame?


Does this version of personal responsibility go the other way? I'm reminded of the Windows 7 commercials where some young socialite looks at the camera and says "I'm a PC and Windows 7 was MY idea." and what they're talking about is that windows 7 was based on the bad feedback they got from Windows Vista. If I participated in that feedback, can I claim to some ownership of Windows 7?

I voted Obama, am I responsible for his health care bill?

I have a low level job at a publishing company. We publish ESL books. Can I claim to have taught millions of immigrants how to speak English?



Responsibility is diffused through the network. That's how large systems survive, they don't rely on any individual agent. BP's CEO steps down, another one steps up. You shoot one bulldozer driver, they'll hire another. If you want to change the system, you're wasting your time fucking with its tiny human agents.

I just have one question.

Would you drive the tractor through the house?

[Cramulus]

Responsibility is diffused through the network. That's how large systems survive, they don't rely on any individual agent. BP's CEO steps down, another one steps up. You shoot one bulldozer driver, they'll hire another. If you want to change the system, you're wasting your time fucking with its tiny human agents.

I want to amend this and say that sometimes there are humans with higher degrees of importance within a network. These people are perhaps the best channel to affect systemic change because they are able to send signals which will be amplified and reinforced by the system instead of defeated by it.

I just have one question.

Would you drive the tractor through the house?

I don't know, it's a hypothetical. I've never read the Grapes of Wrath, so the specific context is invisible to me.

edit: if MY job and family's wellbeing were at risk for failure to comply, I'd probably bulldoze it. If there's a gun pointed in my face, probably not.

[Adios]

The context was foreclosures on farms during the Great Depression.

Thanks for the honest answer.

[tyrannosaurus vex]

In a perfect society, something like the Great Depression would have prompted some kind of organized action to forgive mortgages. Or not, I don't know, I don't understand economics well enough to know if that would do more harm than good. Anyway, the point is that for a society to function, it must have rules. For those rules to be dependable, people must follow them. Whether the rule is a law, a social custom, a matter of business "bulldoze this farm or get fired," doesn't matter.

I don't personally believe that strong-arming somebody who is only following orders, regardless of how dimwitted his actions might be, is going to solve anything beyond the immediate question of whether the farm gets bulldozed in the next 15 minutes. It might put it off for 30 minutes, it might put it off indefinitely, but it will also incur the wrath of a system whose rules must be followed if it is to survive.

So it is more constructive to change the rules where they originate, than to simply force people to break them. Besides the immediate "fine, we'll just send a team of goons and force you to obey" reaction, breaking the system from the bottom up, forcefully, leaves nothing in place to spare whatever the pieces of that system might fall on if it crashes. And even then, a new system will just rise up and be just as self-obsessed as the last one.

For the farmer, there may have been no good answer. He was going to lose his farm, or his freedom, or both. Faced with such a situation, which question is more important: who is ultimately to blame for his predicament, or who is ultimately responsible for his future. His instinct for self-preservation might be at odds with his territorial instincts, but the decision is his: fight (and most assuredly lose) for his farm, or allow the Machine to take the course it is going to take anyway, and rebuild?

Really it isn't a matter of blame and responsibility but a matter of ability to deal with changing circumstances. The guy loved his farm and it was his only means of survival. Without it, maybe he was as good as dead anyway. Or maybe not. But the Bank that came to foreclose was no more under his control than a stray tornado that destroyed his land would be. Compared to the individual, the Machine might as well be a force of Nature.


<that was way longer than i meant it to be...>

[Doktor Howl]

In a perfect society, something like the Great Depression would have prompted some kind of organized action to forgive mortgages.

Actually, we pay the banks to NOT forgive the mortgages.  They evict everyone, keep the prices on the houses artificially high, and then take the bailout money and buy T-bills, so they can collect interest on the loan we gave them.

I don't need perfect.  I'd settle for "somewhat sane".

And in that scenario, there's no excuse for driving the bulldozer.

[Adios]

Vex, a perfect society? Like all the dispossessed homeowners from the recent financial collapse? Oh, they were tossed a bleached bone this time, but little more.

I stated earlier after I researched the root cause that I would have just packed on. There was nothing to fight.

There was no good answer, now we are right back to Squids point.

How to make a good answer.

[BadBeast]

I think the trouble started way back in the early days, when we first started agriculture, and villages and stuff. One man offered to keep an eye out for another man's shit, while he, er    went to mow a meadow?

And the altruism that enabled that to happen, meant we could arrange to temporarily absolve ourselves from our responsibilities, if we could trade off with someone else, for instance, you have to go and visit a village 30 miles away, so you get tour nieghbour to act on your behalf, should any issue arise while you are away. This became a kind of commodity after a while, and then the first commitee was formed, and it just grew from that, into huge Governmental systems. So now, the State absolves us from most of the consequences our actions bring, directly or indirectly.

[Doktor Howl]

Actually, I read a pretty interesting paper about how cooperative farming (which led to cities) was engaged in for the purpose of making beer.

Now, wouldn't THAT be a hoot?  All of the comforts of civilization we have are a byproduct of beer.

You owe it to your ancestors to have a pint, I think.

[Adios]

Actually, I read a pretty interesting paper about how cooperative farming (which led to cities) was engaged in for the purpose of making beer.

Now, wouldn't THAT be a hoot?  All of the comforts of civilization we have are a byproduct of beer.

You owe it to your ancestors to have a pint, I think.

Gawg Bless country folks.

[BadBeast]

Since you put it like that, It would be churlish of me to not to do so.

So with the responsibility of great Bread, comes the opportunity of great Beer?

So let's get rat arsed! (And while we sleep it off in the morning, the woodturners committee, can keep the mills going for us)

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

Actually, I read a pretty interesting paper about how cooperative farming (which led to cities) was engaged in for the purpose of making beer.

Now, wouldn't THAT be a hoot?  All of the comforts of civilization we have are a byproduct of beer.

You owe it to your ancestors to have a pint, I think.

Safer than the water

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

And in that scenario, there's no excuse for driving the bulldozer.

BINGO

The farmer was screwed by the system, no doubt. However, it was his responsibility, he took out the mortgage. HOWEVER, just because he is "doing his job" doesn't absolve the bulldozer driver of being an asshole.

And I think that speaks to Cram's earlier rejection... bad shit happens in society, we can't be responsible for all of it. Its not the responsibility of the bulldozer driver to save the farmer's land; however we are responsible for our specific actions like driving the bulldozer, or taking out the mortgage. We can't simply say "Well the memetic entity said it was a great time to buy into the American Dream, so I'm not culpable for taking out a loan that I can't afford." or "Well the memetic entity said I need a job and driving this bulldozer is good money, so its not my fault that I knocked that dudes house down!"

I don't think being responsible always means doing the altrusitic thing. For example, the bulldozer guy may not have liked his job, but he may have 9 kids at home (Damned Catholics!)... as such he may say "I am responsible for my children, thus I will do this ethically dubious thing which I don't enjoy." He is still accepting responsibility, even though he is still going to do the "bad" thing.

If the farmer killed the driver, there may be an understanding of why (The "This IS My Territory" meme is strong) but he would still be responsible for killing the guy... its not the banks fault or the drivers fault.

To bring it back to the OP, the MP's are responsible for their actions if they declared more houses than they should have, they cannot say "Well, it wasn't technically illegal...so I'm not responsible." It may not have been technically illegal, but they ARE responsible because they DID the act and in cases like the recent British MP mess... it appears obvious that most, if not all of them knew that they were gaming the system.

Responsibility cannot be abdicated. We can understand the motivating factors for an act, but the actor will always be responsible for the act... unless they are brainwashed or under a madjickal spell*.




* I put that bit in special for Dok. 

[tyrannosaurus vex]

And in that scenario, there's no excuse for driving the bulldozer.

BINGO

The farmer was screwed by the system, no doubt. However, it was his responsibility, he took out the mortgage. HOWEVER, just because he is "doing his job" doesn't absolve the bulldozer driver of being an asshole.

And I think that speaks to Cram's earlier rejection... bad shit happens in society, we can't be responsible for all of it. Its not the responsibility of the bulldozer driver to save the farmer's land; however we are responsible for our specific actions like driving the bulldozer, or taking out the mortgage. We can't simply say "Well the memetic entity said it was a great time to buy into the American Dream, so I'm not culpable for taking out a loan that I can't afford." or "Well the memetic entity said I need a job and driving this bulldozer is good money, so its not my fault that I knocked that dudes house down!"

I don't think being responsible always means doing the altrusitic thing. For example, the bulldozer guy may not have liked his job, but he may have 9 kids at home (Damned Catholics!)... as such he may say "I am responsible for my children, thus I will do this ethically dubious thing which I don't enjoy." He is still accepting responsibility, even though he is still going to do the "bad" thing.

If the farmer killed the driver, there may be an understanding of why (The "This IS My Territory" meme is strong) but he would still be responsible for killing the guy... its not the banks fault or the drivers fault.

To bring it back to the OP, the MP's are responsible for their actions if they declared more houses than they should have, they cannot say "Well, it wasn't technically illegal...so I'm not responsible." It may not have been technically illegal, but they ARE responsible because they DID the act and in cases like the recent British MP mess... it appears obvious that most, if not all of them knew that they were gaming the system.

Responsibility cannot be abdicated. We can understand the motivating factors for an act, but the actor will always be responsible for the act... unless they are brainwashed or under a madjickal spell*.




* I put that bit in special for Dok. 

In a way everyone is brainwashed. Our actions are, as Cram said, a function of internal forces; and those forces are a function of external stimuli. There's a way to shift blame away from anybody in any situation. The tractor driver could choose to sacrifice his own lifeline to safe the farmer's lifeline (an act that would prove meaningless as soon as the bank found a more cooperative driver). The farmer could choose to commit an act of violence to defend his lifeline (an act that would also prove meaningless as soon as he was arrested or otherwise "dealt with.")

This whole argument is nothing new at all. It's the "pass the buck" game; and very few people are willing to say, "The buck stops here." There are a thousand directions that blame can go, one for every person's perspective. The tractor driver is either going to be responsible for tearing down the farmhouse, or for failing to do his job. The farmer is either going to be responsible for failing to pay his mortgage, or for committing murder. The bank is either responsible for cold-heartedly depriving a man of his home and his livelihood, or for becoming a casualty of the economic times and ruining a few investors.

Who is to "blame" for anything that happens ultimately comes down to power and the force to move a given situation along. The way those things generally work out is along the path of least resistance -- i.e., whoever causes the smallest splash is getting tossed in the lake, and there's nothing you can do about it. In this case that could be either the farmer or the tractor driver, or both. The bank doesn't care, it'll roll over the top of anyone it has to - not because it is evil but because that's the direction it's going and it's bigger than they are.

As an individual, like an ant facing an impending death under the heel of gigantic boot, your job is to get out of the way.

[Doktor Howl]

And in that scenario, there's no excuse for driving the bulldozer.

BINGO

The farmer was screwed by the system, no doubt. However, it was his responsibility, he took out the mortgage.

But he didn't crash the market through stupid, short-sighted market manipulation.  The banks and steel companies did that.

[Doktor Howl]

* I put that bit in special for Dok. 

Why the fuck do you do that shit?

I'm out of this conversation.  Later.