Yes. This is what I recall from Lee Kwan Yew, Singapore, 'Socialism that works'-
the aged could get accomodation and help from the state. No prob. But the family then got a bill.

Families then found, with a little re-adjustment, they were able to take in their old folks.

This has nothing to do with square chickens and this is not the time to stop thinking in principles. Telling people that "the problem" is a failure to "assign responsibilities to freedoms", which is what you wrote, only invites them to assign more "responsibilities to freedoms". Of course that is political coercion. Our freedoms have no such qualification. They do not go "hand in hand", which is a conservative slogan making freedom contingent on duty.

Underlying the politics is the moral principle of assuming responsibility for one's own life, thoughts and actions, for which the political freedom, i.e., rights, is required. That moral responsibility is self-generated and does not consist in "assigning responsibilities". Without that being understood and accepted in place of altruistic duty there will be no end to the entitlements -- through a verbal 'shortcut' afraid to name the essence or any other means. The most that gets out of them is some temporary "workfare" in the name of reform along with the growing welfare state.

"One should be responsible for the consequences of one's own actions and exercising one's freedoms" is a vague assertion that means nothing to a person who accepts altruism as morality and the primacy of need. Once he begins to apply it under his collectivist-statist premises and sees the clash with self-responsibility, it does not convince him to abandon his collectivism and statism. But he is all to ready to "assign responsibility" imposed on you for succeeding in exercising your freedom.

Basic philosophical principles are not about "square chickens", they are about the real world and are required to live in it. The "first steps" are not the politics of employing vague assertions trying to sound acceptable to collectivists by not not "going too far" so as to say something meaningful and fundamental. Pragmatism does not work. Ayn Rand rejected the a-philosophical Pragmatist "libertarians". She confronted the chickens coming home to roost, not a fantasy world of "square chickens" in an evasion of "the problem".

In an ideal world, with square chickens, this may be a valid position. However when questioned by a liberal house guest in the other room, I just noted what I was writing about to . I noted "I'm arguing that one should be responsible for the consequences of one's own actions and exercising one's freedoms." She said: "I don't generally agree with you, but that makes perfect sense."

You are stealing my meaning for the term "responsibilities" as a means for government coercion, when I mean or have said no such thing.
Presently, the government assigns peoples' bad decisions to others, and we all pay with fair and hard earned money for other people's poor judgement, lack of discipline,weakness of character, et al. A simple axiom, like all freedoms come with responsibilities for the consequences, comes either with 1) fewer freedoms (unlikely), or 2) a growing, soul searching among people that we can not expect just a bunch of free stuff and safety nets. One hour and 13 minutes ago, I saw precisely this happen to a supporter of the entitled.

We, Libertarians and/or Rand supporters will sway precisely zero people with philosophical arguments about rights and square chickens. We have to take the first steps first. Again I assert, people want freedoms, and think separately about responsibilities, when they MUST go hand in hand.

"The problem" is not a failure to "assign responsibilities". In a free society, unlike for conservatives, "responsibilities" are not "assigned". The central political problem now is the failure to acknowledge the rights of the individual, not a lack of "assigning responsibilities". There is no end to the "responsibilities" the government is assigning to provide for its entitlements and taxes. We do not owe society anything for living our own lives in accordance with the right to our freedom.

Oh good god.

Yes, and I stand by the original assertion. People must be responsible for the consequences of exercising their rights. There are many ways to say this. Dead sure you agree. No idea what about the original wording tripped your trigger. Also, reassert that what the rights are, the country, this coutry's founding, or the planet we are on, is irrelevant to the notion of taking responsibility for ones actions, which is a superset of taking responsibility for exercising ones rights, since one's actions may not be within one's rights.

Civilized life is not possible without rights. This country was founded on the principle of the rights of the individual. That is not irrelevant.

You started this discussion with the assertion "The problem is we don't assign responsibility to the freedoms we have". Our freedoms are our rights. They are not contingent on "assigning responsibility".

This is a ridiculous discussion, that we have had before.

You keep going back to rights. Rights are completely irrelevant. The specific rights are irrelevant. Where rights originate (nature, religion, government, test tubes) is irrelevant. Rights are wholly irrelevant to the point.

I have no idea, at all, why you continue to resist the simple logical argument I have made that one must responsible for the consequences of their own decisions, and that without this feedback mechanism, the system, is unstable. If government takes from other people to service the consequences of their exercise of their rights (irrespective of the right or it source), people will take advantage, the system operating point will go to the margin, and responsible people will be taken advantage of unfairly.

Are we beating around the bush about abortion, which you know I agree with you on. One must live with the consequences: pay for the abortion (with or without insurance) and/or deal with the physical recovery. What the hell are we arguing about?

Now, please respond WITHOUT a bringing up rights. Rights are completely irrelevant to this discussion. Consequences of actions and responsibility for consequences are the point.

It is true that there is a correlation between unmarried men and violence in a society. This is one of the reasons that polygamy - originally a way to compensate in a culture when many of the men had been killed via warfare - is a bad plan in today's world. One of the posiive side effects might be to make women more valuable and therefore more upwardly mobile.

Jan

The laws of human nature do not cease to operate when they are ignored. Ignoring them is just as destructive as attempting to ignore the laws of gravity.

There are no moral duties.

Statist entitlements are not rights. There are no "rights" to food. Where you get your food is up to you and who ever sells or gives it to you. It has nothing to do with the fact that every individual has natural rights because of his nature as a human being, not as a gift from the state in exchange for fulfilling alleged duties to society. This isn't confusing.

India has an even worse imbalance of 37 million more men than women, due to a cultural preference for males. Quite a situation, with the world's two biggest population countries with an excess of cannon fodder in competition with each other for Asian control.

I was not aware of this, but that is very interesting. Perhaps they have realized that all the cost associate with taking care of aging parents are astronomically higher when done by a third party other than the children of that person.

I need to read up on that. Thanks Jan!

Thank you for commenting, but there is a significant difference between lack-of-belief in physical laws, which then continue to operate just the same way they do when "believed' in and the actual negation of human rights under a regime that does not believe in them.

Jan

I found it interesting that China, for all its vaunted socialism, is still relying on personal family care to take care of the old people. Woops! Something must'a slipped up in the Socialist cradle-to-grave plan.

Jan

Thank you. I was not able to find this data before!

Jan

No, if you eat, you pay for what you eat.

You are responsible for your own freedom, just like i said in the first place. This isn't confusing.

No, that is precisely what I am saying is the problem: The system is fundamentally unstable if people's freedom does not come accountability for their own actions.

The English is not complicated. "The problem is we don't assign responsibility to the freedoms we have, but rather impose on others to deal with the consequences. "

Here's one reference (and I was quite low in my estimates): https://www.rfa.org/english/news/chin...

There are no moral duties. The idea of duty is the opposite of the roots of morality as principles by which to make choices required to live. Remember Ayn Rand's article "Causality versus Duty".

Rational principles of science have been undiscovered, ignored and traditionally defied throughout history. That never made them untrue. The same holds for natural rights as principles for human life. We do not owe duties in exchange for rights as conservatives demand, and accepting responsibility for what one does does include submitting to a duty mentality.

No one said anything remotely like that. We don't owe duties to the conservative state in exchange for our natural rights.

" NO FREEDOM CAN EVER COME WITHOUT THE RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE CONSEQUENT OUTCOME...EVER.
[...]
CG is apoplectic now seeking the socialist version of this fundamental assertion."
Speak for yourself. I believe categorically in people's right to blow their money on gambling. I think you're saying people are free to do it but not free from the consequences. Some people use similar language to say if people are irresponsible with their money, someone else is justified in using force to take away their money.

It is not necessary to 'control' population: If you make birth control available and provide good health care so that children survive, the individual people making individual decisions reduce the population on their own. This is what is actually happening in all of the first world nations.

Just a minor comment: While it is true that Malthusian predictions have been foiled by technology, the reason that this has happened is because Malthus' theory was inherently flawed. Malthus created a model in which changes occurred in quantity but not in quality. Predicting population problems from Malthusian calculations is like trying to figure the number of beehives we would need to provide candles to light all our homes if electricity had not been invented. Malthus was an 18th-19th C scholar...and should be left in those centuries.

Jan

Do you have data for this? I have looked (because this was the likely outcome) but I have never found actual figures to support this. (This is a genuine question; I am not being sarcastic.)

All of the published figures that WHO etc publish show a normal male/female balance, going back decades. This data comes from China gov, so it may deliberately be incorrect, but I have not found another source.

Jan

It seems to me, reading the above thread, that the word "responsibility" is being used to mean two different things. In one set of replies, it is used to represent 'imposed duties'; in the other the same word is used to mean 'natural consequences'.

Similarly, when one says that "freedoms are rights" it must be clear that this phrase does not refer to a natural law such as gravity or the speed of light, because for most of the world at most of the time, those freedoms are notable by their absence.

So what is strong enough to go against the current of most of human history and gain us these freedoms? I think it is the decision by individuals to choose such duties as voluntarily joining the military, in order to escape the natural consequence that would result from not doing so - namely, having these freedoms eradicated - that allows these freedoms to exist..

So I think that "responsibility" indeed includes 'duty' - but not imposed. Awareness of the consequences of choosing or not choosing an uncomfortable situation in order to gain a long-term benefit is not only responsible, it is wise.

Jan