Shifting responiibillity

[Quantum Quack]

Perhaps. But that man was also just ONE of many ...yet he, of all of the others, chose to kill three men. All of the other people, in the same situation as the murderer, did NOT kill anyone. Yet, for that ONE act, by that ONE man, the judge is condemning the whole of "society"?

The problem I see is one of determining what you mean by "society"? I.e., if that killer were a product of New York City "society", should the "society" of Los Angeles bear any responsibility? ...or the "society" of Miami?

The concept of "society" is a difficult one and to speak of it in such broad terms is useless and serves no good.

As I've said above, however, there are many people in the poverty-stricken locales with poor education, etc., yet all of them don't resort to murder. That, in my opinion, is the first point that should be discussed. Why didn't all of those others, who were raised in the same environment, NOT resort to murder or violence?



Is a resident of California responsible for that child in New York City?

Define the term "society" or give a good working idea of what you mean by it in regard to this post. I don't understand it. For one thing, taking your post in a literal sense, "we" could also be responsible for some murderer in, say, Bangkok, Thailand! How can that be? Who is "we" and who is "...the tragedy of "our" streets..."?



Who forces them to live in poverty? And do the laws of the nation permit each citizen to "...reacts to what he may percieve as an injustice."? Laws are usually made for all citizens and if one, for whatever reason, breaks that law, he should be held accountable.

Your broad brush strokes make discussing this a difficult, if not impossible task.

Baron Max

Baron I agree in the main to all your points. And yes the broadness of the brush strokes does render the topic a bit....hmmmmm....obscure.

I recall a court case here that set a precedent regarding shared responsibility many many years ago that stuck in my mind.

It was a case about two car drivers. The plaintif was stationary at a set of lights doing nothing illegal and another driver accidently plowed into the rear of the plaintifs car.
The plaintif was sueing the car driver that drove into the rear of his car for full compensation as to damages and kneck injuries.

The Judge in his decision refused to award 100% compensation due to his decision to proportion blame between the two and not just make one driver soley responsible.

The Judge stated that when gettng into the car the plaintif was aware of the risk of accident and by going on and driving has accepted a proportion of responsibility for any accident he may be involved in.

I think in this case the proportion was deemed to be about 20%:80%

This decision sticks out in my thoughts as a good example of shared responsibility that is implied in peoples actions.

For example if you wish to go into a bank you know that you have a certain risk of being involved in a bank robbery as a patron of the bank.

That you may get caught up in the robbery by merely being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

So in this scenario of Judge Julian, society knows that by it's behaviour it has a certain responsibility for the mans actions.
Whilst I don't think it could be proportioned as 20:80 the sharing of responsibility does exist IMO. [ The story of course is deliberate absurdity ]

 

[Prince_James]

Quantum Quack:

That is a ludicrous decision by the judge to have a man doing nothing illegal being blamed for anything regarding the accident. But let me go back to your other reply now.

Prince what can I say, the whole point of the story seems to have been missed. It is this very attitude shown in the quote above that means that the bulk of society is going to go down the toilet.

Are you oblivious to the problem of an aging population, a situation where there is a severe shortage of university places, and a lowering need even for PH Ds', where the workforce has been shifting to part time and casual states, that full time work is nearly a historical relic that will eventually become the subject of myth and legend. Where more and more persons live their entire lives with out ever holding a full time job nor ever feeling the satisfaction of being free from having to recieve government benefits and charity.

Aging populations must adapt to changing times, whatever that means. If that means they must work longer or must learn new skills, this is simply the case. Life is not Elysium.

As to the rest of this statement, perhaps it is due to the fact that you live in Australia and I in America? As far as I know, America has a very different climate, and it may well be a result of America's politically conservative climate (compared to most of the rest of the world) which results in a great demand for many things.

I can only repeat my earlier assertion that the issue of employment is and will become the biggest issue that society faces unless there is a comprehensive change in approach to the issue.

Thsoe who live in the past, die in the past. There are ways to tackle the issue, but they require paleoconservative measures which don't seem to be in vogue in the first world.

When you find yourself redundant at 45 with another 40 odd years to live in pseudo retirement you will get the idea I guess.
I am not convinced that persons can accumulate enough investment to support a lengthy retirement by the age of 45.
So someone is going to have to foot the bill unless you are going to advocate euthanasia as a solution....

The best way to assure gainful employment outside of medical, educational, law, and military fields, is to start your own business, be it physically or online. FOr those who, however, are in their 40's now, they must recognize that they must prepare themselves for work for atleast twenty years more and this means adapting, even drastically, to the times.

 

[Baron Max]

For example if you wish to go into a bank you know that you have a certain risk of being involved in a bank robbery as a patron of the bank.

That you may get caught up in the robbery by merely being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Well, in a nation of laws and justice, bank robbery is illegal ...going into a public bank building is not!

Sure, there are risks involved, but our laws are specifically stated so as to LESSEN those risks. By knowing that it's against the law to rob banks, the customer is thus reassured that he's going to be safe from robbery. If, for example, there were signs stating the risks PRIOR to entrying the bank, then perhaps the customer could make that decision for himself ...but there isn't a sign!

No, I don't see how one can assume a shared responsibility, however minimal, for walking into a bank robbery scene! Ditto for the car accident ...the law says that it's illegal to drive your car into someone else's car! There is no law that says one shouldn't be stopped at a redlight when someone else's brakes got out!!

Baron Max

 

[Baron Max]

The best way to assure gainful employment ..., is to start your own business, be it physically or online.

I don't want to derail the topic, but that statement is pretty stupid, James! One can't just start his/her own business and ...poof... be successfully, gainfully employed!! Without customers, the business is nothing. And as to saying it's the "best way" is implying that the business will be successful ...the greater majority of self-employed businesses fail miserably. That is NOT a good gamble, the odds are against you every step of the way.

Baron Max

 

[Prince_James]

Baron Max:

I don't want to derail the topic, but that statement is pretty stupid, James! One can't just start his/her own business and ...poof... be successfully, gainfully employed!! Without customers, the business is nothing. And as to saying it's the "best way" is implying that the business will be successful ...the greater majority of self-employed businesses fail miserably. That is NOT a good gamble, the odds are against you every step of the way.

I never claimed 100 percent success, nor even a great chance at success. One has to fight tooth-and-nail every step of the way, but with one's business one is master of one's own destiny. One cannot get fired, one cannot be downsized, and all is one's own responsibility.

 

[Baron Max]

...but with one's business one is master of one's own destiny. One cannot get fired, one cannot be downsized, and all is one's own responsibility.

No, no and double NO! Don't you understand business at all? Every business, any business is at the mercy of customers! If there ain't no customers, or the product is no longer interesting to the customers, it will fail ...and it has nothing to do with responsibility or desire. And that's the same or worse than being fired or downsized. Once you've had your own business, you're not nearly as marketable as others ...so it's even worse!

One is NOT the "master of one's own destiny"!! That's pure bullshit.

Baron Max

 

[Prince_James]

Baron Max:

No, no and double NO! Don't you understand business at all? Every business, any business is at the mercy of customers! If there ain't no customers, or the product is no longer interesting to the customers, it will fail ...and it has nothing to do with responsibility or desire. And that's the same or worse than being fired or downsized. Once you've had your own business, you're not nearly as marketable as others ...so it's even worse!

One is NOT the "master of one's own destiny"!! That's pure bullshit.

All businesses are "at the mercy of their customers", it is an inherent part of business, but if you are in the employ of another, you are at their whims. So long as you're capable of appealing to your market and know how to work well within it, your business will thrive and you'll never have to be subject to being fired.