Personal responsibility is the bane of the liberals because it shifts responsibility from the nanny state and
society to the individual. Everything that happens is the result of someone, somewhere making a decision and
personal responsibility is the only thing that holds one person accountable.
Society and liberals want to shift it from the individual to society so that the individual no longer has to feel any
regret for making stupid decisions. The corollary to personal responsibility is that all decisions have
consequences. This is the part that the liberals want to avoid.
Consider, drug addiction is no longer the fault of the individual, it is a disease. Here is where that argument
falls apart - who made the decision to engage with drugs the first time? Did SOCIETY sit you down and force
that pill down your throat or stuff a roach into your mouth and force you to inhale or stick a needle in your arm
for that first fix?
Society wants us to believe that a disease is anything that you can't control but this definition is too broad
because that would imply that when you are in an accident from you tire blowing out from glass on the road,
that you had a disease. A truly random and arbitrary accident is not something you have any control over so
that makes it a disease.
Let's face it, this is just another attempt to relieve people of their requirement to manage their own lives and
make their own decisions, instead turn the responsibility for their lives over to the nanny state where decisions
and commitment are not required. There is one issue that must be remembered in a nanny state, you can't buy
success, it must be earned. The nanny state determines who receives the greatest benefits and those people
make the decisions for everyone else.
In the USSR and Communist China, the leaders were provided with the greatest comforts (including dachas in
the resorts) while the common man lived day to day, fighting for loaves of bread. In the nanny state of
communism, the leaders were not successful, but they decided that their needs were more important than
others and should be satisfied. The real problem is the relative nature of communism and socialism because
they are effectively the same with a difference only in name. Communism includes the functions of government
under central rule that is established without input from the common man, socialism is a type of an economy
under the control of a selected form of government, often a claimed representative form of government.
Communism is nothing more than the government in which the leaders determine your every move, your every
choice, your every option. Since nothing is owned by the individual then the individual cannot benefit from any
personal assets or endeavours. However, isn't that very definition of success? If you can take an endeavour
and grow this into something that others value and want, then isn't that endeavor a success? Here's the rub, in
order for an endeavor to grow and expand then the individual must be in a position to make the decisions
regarding the future of the endeavor, taking it out of the hands of the government.
Consider the issue of frakking in the United States. Obama's administration refused to provide any support or
access for these projects so what happened, they went around Obama's administration and created an entirely
unexplored resource with the potential for millions of barrels of energy produced domestically instead of buying
it from someone else. A small group of investors decided to take personal responsibility in the development of
this resource and won. Of course, once the success had been incorporated into the economy, Obama
declared that he was responsible for the results.
Got off topic slightly but not entirely. The issue is the need for personal responsibility and this detour was and
examination of the results of making a decision and taking personal responsibility. These very people could
have followed the dictates of Obama and not accomplished anything but had there been enough of that?
Drug addiction is not the result of a virus or germ or bacteria or a mutation in a cell that results in a disease like
polio or cancer or the common cold. The moment that the individual decides to accept the first introduction of a
poison into their system, then it is no longer a disease, it is a choice. Are we, seriously, expected to believe
that no one had ever told these people that drugs are bad and they should stay away from them and drugs can
cause an addiction? Others maybe but not me.
Smoking has longer been considered a potential addiction and this was recognized by the government, which
explains the notice on every pack of cigarettes which states simply that smoking can cause a variety of health
issues which may lead to death. Of course, the same is true of alcohol drinks, these also have a warning
because science and government understand the impact of alcohol on the body. So, since smoking is
considered an addiction then alcohol can also cause an addiction. With these also comes lots ot advertising on
TV reminding everyone how much of a problem these are. Mater of fact, there are laws that keep anyone from
indulging before they are legally adults. One would think that all of these indicators would cause someone to
draw the conclusion that these are bad for you, not good, can cause an addiction. And still someone makes
the decision to indulge. They are not trying to kill bacteria by smoking it out or kill a virus by soaking it in
alcohol, they make the conscious decision to indulge and end up becoming addicted.
This is the case with every addiction. It started with the first decision to indulge, it is not the last decision that is
the problem. I often hear people declare that they are addicted and they can't stop, it is a disease which is
nothing more than an excuse for not making the decision at any time in the past to not indulge. We provide
information and expect people think and make smart decisions but they make the wrong decision then want to
be excused and make it a society problem because, stupidity and poor decisions are now considered a disease.
Personal responsibility is very simple - make a decision and then take the responsibility for that decisions. If
someone was to invest in a very risky stock and for weeks then months, nothing happens and then all of
sudden it explodes in value and goes through the roof. Kinda like investing in Microsoft when it first came out
and just holding on to it, ending up as a millionaire (yes, actually happened).
So, when that decision ends up making millions, is that a disease and the profits turned over to the
government? No, of course not, that was simply a brilliant decision made by the individual and he deserves all
of the appropriate credit. But, if that same individual made a decision to start drinking and became addicted
that is a disease. Does anyone else see the stupidity and the desire to make an excuse for making a poor
Society, those with a weak mind, have a need to pass the responsibility on to a greater power because they do
not want the shame of being regarded as a failure for making bad decisions. So now, an addiction, which is
purely the result of a poor decision by the individual, is now a disease, thereby passing the responsibility for the
poor and bad decisions onto an irresponsible concept of a bodily weakness instead of a weakness of the mind.
If you want to make the world a better place, force the concept of personal responsibility into the discussion,
bring it into the open. Openly discuss the decision process and personal responsibility for every social issue.
Consider abortion, most people would prefer not to in terms of personal responsibility. Women in favor of
abortion make the claim that they have the right to control their own bodies however, they define that control in
terms of having an abortion not preventing the pregnancy. In other words, when the opportunity presents itself,
they have the choice to avoid conception or make the wrong decision and then declare that their control over
their bodies gives them a right to force their poor choices on to the living being that was conceived.
The point is that when you start the process in the middle, your choice of control makes sense. But personal
responsibility means that you recognize when the process starts and make the decisions starting at that point
and bear the brunt of the consequences of poor decisions.
If you spend your money on drinking in the bar with friends instead of paying for your car payment, society
does not owe you to get your car back or replaced, poor choices have consequences. Personal Responsibility
means understanding that there are consequences and you need to make your choice understanding those
Of course, if you don't want personal responsibility, don't complain when the government gives all your stuff to
someone else because that is better for society.