Only YOU can prevent bad things from happening in your life!
Besides...
Maybe if more people were killed outright in auto accidents, our health insurance rates would be lower.
My niece was in a serious accident that shattered her hip, put her in the ICU for weeks and she will have a limp the rest of her life, driving a 1990's car (a Hyundai as it happens).
If she had just died like in the old days, the premiums wouldn't be going up for everyone insured through her company, correct?
Plus there is no guarantee she will go on to be a useful member of society anyway, so what was the point in trying to save her?
But then, I believe in true personal responsibility, which most people don't want to accept.
It's her own fault for getting in the accident in the first place.
Maybe if more people were killed outright in auto accidents, our health insurance rates would be lower.
My niece was in a serious accident that shattered her hip, put her in the ICU for weeks and she will have a limp the rest of her life, driving a 1990's car (a Hyundai as it happens).
If she had just died like in the old days, the premiums wouldn't be going up for everyone insured through her company, correct?
Plus there is no guarantee she will go on to be a useful member of society anyway, so what was the point in trying to save her?
But then, I believe in true personal responsibility, which most people don't want to accept.
It's her own fault for getting in the accident in the first place.
Comments
Not at all. I believe in personal responsibility. If I get into a wreck in an old car, it's my fault for getting into the wreck. If I choose to be on that street at that time of day with an idiot who causes an accident, it's my fault. I haven't turned over responsibility to anyone. I choose to drive the car that I want to drive, regardless of what the other people are driving. If I get killed, it's my fault. if they get killed, it's their fault. Even if I cause the accident, it's still their fault for getting killed and not mine. They could have elected to stay home that day, left 15 minutes later or earlier, etc.
True personal responsibility means it's never someone else's fault. Most people cannot handle that concept.
It's like the people killed on 9/11. As far as I am concerned, each of those people chose to be on that plane, in that building, etc. on that day. Had they not chosen to be there, they would be alive today. Their fault, and no one else's.
Therefore, I am not giving responsibility to anyone else. I am taking responsibility by driving the car I feel safest in and enjoy the most and if I get killed, it's my own fault.
How is that not taking true responsibility for your life and living with those choices?
I believe in personal responsibility but that statement makes no sense.
It would be my fault for being on the freeway when an idiot like yourself was text messaging. If I wasn't on the freeway, I wouldn't have been sideswiped by you. How can it possibly be your fault that I was on the freeway?
You didn't control my actions, only I controlled my actions. I elected to get on the freeway, therefore it's my fault.
I could have stayed on the side roads and not gotten on the freeway. I could have stayed home and not gone anywhere. I, by my own free will, elected to get on the freeway and, as a result, I ended up in an accident with someone.
Did I make the decision to be on the freeway at that time?
If so, then it has to be my fault.
Like I said, most people don't want to take responsibility for their own actions and instead look for someone else to blame.
Most people don't want to face true personal responsibility and you are an example of that. True personal responsibility means you only have yourself to blame for anything, good or bad, that happens in your life.
PublicEnemy#1, you certainly have an interesting perspective. However, don't you think it reasonable that people driving on the freeway have the right to expect other drivers to not be doing stupid / dangerous things, threatening their safety? Isn't that what traffic laws are all about?
Make no mistake, traffic laws are about REVENUE, not safety. Safety could easily be addressed without the penalties (e.g. laws). I just read about Wash. DC traffic cameras and radar traps being pinpointed on GPS and fed to I-phone App users. Does this information increase safety? Certainly, as drivers that might otherwise speed will slow down with the knowledge that someone is watching them. So, the end result of showing people where the traps are keeps people safer. Guess who doesn't like the app?
The chief of police...
If the chief was truly interested in safety, then they wouldn't have a problem with this app, but the chief is only interested in the loss of revenue, which is very lucrative.
I personally don't think insurance should be required on cars that are wholly owned by an individual because you are forcing the legal owner to pay for something they may be willing to gamble on. Yet it is masked in the guide of "the greater good" and everyone gets stuck paying for other's mistakes (hmm.. housing mess anyone?).
If I own a home outright, I am not required to carry insurance on that home. I could have a pool that some idiot could fall into, but I am not required to have homeowner's insurance. So why should I be required to have auto insurance if I own the car outright?
But to address your question, do I have the "right" to expect others not to be stupid? I don't have that "right" with anything else, why should I have that "right" for public roads?
People do stupid things all the time, whether they are driving or otherwise. It's up to me to judge their stupidity and take appropriate actions to keep from ending up in a situation I will regret.
I assume people will do stupid things on the road and constantly watch for them to do it. But if I get in an accident, it's still going to be my fault for being on the road at that time.
Dude, that is noone's definition of personal responsibility. But then you are publicenemy. What should I expect.
By your definition are people at fault if they get random cancer, or if their child dies in a car accident? How about if you get some bad Tylenol? your problem?
go ahead and dig the hole
Accident avoidance is much more critical that accident survival.
If you can avoid an accident you will always survive unscathed right?
So if my car can go 60-0 40 before yours that makes my car incredibly safer.
If the suspension and steering system is much more responsive I can swerve to avoid it better right?
If my ABS kicks in to keep me from going into a flat out skid I well have better control of my vehicle.
If the traction control keeps me from bucking the back end into a telephone pole I will be in better shape right? (then again I only see the "trac nanny" when I am driving like an idiot.
So you may be surrounded in a throne of steel, but have you priced what good steel reworking costs these days? I know a guy who does a ton of it, and its much more expensive than bolting on a new part.
Cancer? Why wouldn't that be my fault? My genes, my body, my exposure to bad things, etc. Who else are you going to blame?
My kid dies in a car accident? If the child is a minor, they I would say it's my fault for putting them in danger as their guardian. If they are an adult, it's their fault for getting killed.
Tylenol??? Are you serious? Of course, it's my fault for taking a bottle that was tainted. I had complete freedom to NOT grab the tainted bottle. Correct me if I am wrong, but every one of those people in the cases you are referring to CHOSE to grab that bottle and take the pills inside. They put too much trust in the company, the drug store, etc.
They took a chance that the pills would be safe and untainted. They weren't, but it is ultimately their fault for buying that particular bottle and taking the pills.
Why is this so difficult to understand? The problem is, no one wants to take responsibility for what happens in their life. It's always someone else's fault. How can it ever be someone else's fault in a free society?
Yep, because I relied on the police, an alarm system, etc. to protect myself, when the only person I could, and should, rely on is myself. If you had attempted it, I would have taken the appropriate steps to prevent your invasion.
Had I been unsuccessful I really only have myself to blame. Why? Because I could have not been sleeping in my house that night, I could have elected to have a large dog, a 12 gauge under the bed, etc. etc. If I failed to adequately prepare myself for just such an eventuality, I really only have myself to blame.
Isn't it interesting that so many here are advocating that the government shouldn't bail out irresponsible homeowners, but when push comes to shove, they don't really want to take full responsibility for their own actions and decisions, either.
Perhaps I can explain it this way:
Every day we all take thousands of risks. We assess the level of risk that each thing we do possesses. Driving a car to work has a certain level of risk associated with it. Sleeping in your home at night has a certain level of risk. Buying food that you didn't grow yourself has a certain level of risk. We assess the risk and take appropriate action based on that. Some people are terrified of flying. They perceive the risk to be too great. Some think riding a bike in the middle of the city is too great a risk. But at the end of the day, each of you have made decisions based upon the risk factors involved. It's no different than playing the odds in gambling. You drive a car to work because you believe the risk is slight enough that it is worth it for the money you make by taking the risk. At the end of the day though, you made EVERY SINGLE DECISION in your life. If you make the right decisions, you live to see another day. If you don't, then you might end up dead.
But each and every decision you made was made knowing the risk factors involved. If you make all the decisions, they why shouldn't you be responsible for all the consequences, good AND bad?
I am not saying people are above the law, only that if you took the risk, you have to be willing to live with the consequences. If you are afraid of being hurt in a bank robbery, then don't go to a bank. If you never go near a bank, the chances of being hurt in a bank robbery are far less likely than if you do. People take the risks associated with bank robberies when doing business at banks because the risks are relatively low. They assess the risk and choose to take it. But, if you assess that risk wrong on the day the bank gets robbed, whose fault is it if you end up dead? You made the conscious choice to go into that particular bank on that particular day, right? So, again, whose fault is it?
If you weren't there on that day, you would not have gotten shot. So, again, how can it be anyone's fault but your own?
I completely agree. Accident avoidance is what I do every day. I never rely on the car to keep me safe, I rely on my skills in paying attention to potential accidents, always looking for a safe way out, not getting boxed in, looking for stupidity on the roads, etc. You, unfortunately, want to rely on the car to save you. I would prefer not to trust my life to all those systems working properly.
If you drive safely, then it matters not one bit what type of car you drive. If I never have to use the ABS systems, the airbags, the traction control, etc. because I drive safer than everyone else and I always assume the other drivers will do something stupid, then why, exactly, do I need them?
Those safety items are only there to protect the stupid. The safe drivers never need them.
Ok, I'll let you get back to smelling your own farts.
Resorting to personal insults is rather infantile, don't you think? And certainly indicative of someone who has been bested in an debate.
Thanks for playing.
Yup you got me.
Again, thanks for playing. Snarky comments are often the last resort of the person who has been bested in a debate.
FWIW, "advocatus diaboli" would be the more appropriate title.
Deejayoh, perhaps the schizophrenic should have made the decision to take his drugs to keep it at bay and to continue regular treatment so he could live a normal life. He elected not to get drugs and treatment so he chose to remain a schizophrenic.
Why is this concept so difficult for some people to accept or acknowledge? Is it merely the thought of true ultimate personal responsibility that scares them? If you have free will, you need to take responsibility for your decisions.
Seems to me most people here, like many ridiculed homeowners across the country, feel they shouldn't be responsible for their own actions.
and Tim got it right, sorry.
Successful treatment of schizophrenia, therefore, depends upon a life-long regimen of both drug and psychosocial, support therapies. While the medication helps control the psychosis associated with schizophrenia (e.g., the delusions and hallucinations), it cannot help the person find a job, learn to be effective in social relationships, increase the individual's coping skills, and help them learn to communicate and work well with others. Poverty, homelessness, and unemployment are often associated with this disorder, but they don't have to be. If the individual finds appropriate treatment and sticks with it, a person with schizophrenia can lead a happy and successful life.
http://psychcentral.com/disorders/sx31t.htm
Seems to me if the person elects to face their diagnosis and TAKES RESPONSIBILITY for it by taking the regimen of drugs and therapy proscribed, there shouldn't be a problem.
If you are speaking from personal experience with someone, perhaps you need to remind them that they have a choice and should not blame others if they make a bad choice.
Again, life is much easier when you are willing to acknowledge that everything that happens in your life, good or bad, is something you are ultimately responsible for.
I agree with you to a certain extent, but not to the level that you're taking it.
A lot of people do seem to drive talking on the cellphones secure in the knowledge that their airbags, crumple zones and "city safety" automatic brakes will keep them safe from their own stupidity.
But, unlike you, I assume that no matter how good I am at accident avoidance that there's always someone out there drunk enough to do something that'll get me into a bad accident with no way out. In that case I want the airbags and crumple zones as well.
And I have no problem with that at all. My problem is that in accepting the safety components I also have to accept all the crappy plastic options put on every car today and the lack of design and originality.
I guess for me, I value the car's aesthetics more than the safety features. So I try to be as careful as possible with the old cars I own in order to keep them wreck free. I choose to drive like an old lady because I don't want to be put into a situation where I might need those airbags and crumple zones.
For me, I just value the aesthetics and, what I perceive to be, a better built product, more than the safety and options.
To each his own!
Traffic laws are about safety. If there was no law about how fast I could drive on I5 and no penalty associated with that law, what would discourage people from driving unsafe speeds?
Which laws are enforced and how they're enforced may be more about revenue, but the laws themselves are not.
Ever heard of the Autobahn? If safety is the concern, why doesn't the German govt. impose speed limits on all of it?
If safety is the issue, why are the penalties strictly monetary in 99% of all speeding cases?
Speeding tickets are about revenue, not safety. If the penalty wasn't money based, I could agree with you. If a speeding offense resulted in jail time, license suspension, a week long driving course, etc. I could see the benefit.
And let's not forget the 55mph limit. That had NOTHING to do with safety and everything to do with fuel economy and revernue.
It was still a traffic law though.
Was that for safety as well?
The 55 mph national limit is an exception, and you're absolutely correct - it was about fuel economy.
However, you're still confusing the law with the enforcement of the law. Speeding is more frequently enforced because it is easy (police car w/ LIDAR can generate 2-4 tickets/hour). Enforcing red light running, poor lane control, inattentive driving, etc - things which directly result in many wrecks - is harder because the presence of a LEO turns everyone into "good" drivers. So yes, the choice to focus on enforcing speeding (which has only a loose correlation to safety) is purely about revenue - but the laws themselves are for the most part safety.
As for why the penalty is typically just a monetary fine - it's because the threat of having to pay $200+ for a speeding ticket as well as increased insurance premiums is enough to keep most people going sane speeds. People who routinely speed excessively quickly find that the punishments can go beyond just a fine.
This statement makes my point. It's about using cops to make money for cities and counties because it's easy.
If we had a plethora of cops on the street responding to crimes instead of the "come in a fill out a form because we won't be sending a unit to respond", then I could see the point.
I guess I see a cop's job as something more than a revenue generator and way to get a fat pension when you retire.
I don't see the need for seatbelt laws, helmet laws or speed limits on the freeways. And I also don't think auto insurance should be mandatory.
If people want to be stupid, I say we should let them. Why should we save people from themselves anyway? Clear out the gene pool quicker if we leave them to their own devices.
I want to have the choice to wear a seatbelt, not be forced into it under the guise of safety and the threat of a financial penalty.
But then, I also think people should pack heat more often, concealed or otherwise.
I am bit too Libertarian for most people.
Often bad things happen that are nobody's fault at all.
You would be a personal injury lawyer's wet-dream on a jury.
:roll: Why is it in our society that if someone holds a less common view (like regular Libertarianism) they apologize for it's shortcomings, but when someone holds a crazy view they get so smug about it?
That phrase doesn't mean what you think it means. By your definition, everything is your fault. So thanks a bundle PublicEnemy#1 for starting a war in Iraq and another in Afghanistan, developing nuclear weapons in Iran and North Korea, hijacking all four 9/11 planes, fomenting a housing bubble, forcing our nation into debt, precipitating the collapse of the banking sector, financing/directing/acting the movies Gigli/Love Guru/Catwoman, and injecting steroids into baseball players. I'm glad you're taking "personal responsibility" for all the harm you personally have caused.
Or, is that not actually what you meant? I couldn't tell exactly how far your irrational diatribe should be extrapolated, because you suggest it should be extrapolated indefinitely. Rather than belaboring this point, allow me to explain why your view is wrong.
It makes two very flawed assumptions. The first is that we personally are always responsible for the big events surrounding our lives. If an infant is shot dead during a civil war, you cannot argue with any integrity that the infant should take "personal responsibility" either for being born in said country or for failing to leave said country due to the civil war. The child had no choice in the matter. I can hear you salivating, that this situation is obviously the personal responsibility of the parents (and it is), but that argument clearly contradicts all your previous positions.
The second flaw is in arguing that people should be held responsible for the repercussions every small action they take, even though the human mind is designed to only operate on events of middling scope. This is the straw that broke the camel's back kind of case where your actions only happened to be the last in a serious of actions that caused great harm. Somewhere out there is the last guy who bought an overpriced home before the crash. He's responsible for his own lost equity on that home, but he's not personally responsible for the national housing crash or even for any bank failures.
Do you disagree? What if next week a nearby star (in our galaxy) goes supernova (or went rather) and shoots an energy blast straight for our tiny world knocking all the atmosphere off of it. This is an act that could not be anticipated due to the fact it happens at the speed of light, and given our limited technology it is a situation you could not possibly avoid even if anticipated. Is this your personal responsibility?
Duh.