Do people take enough responsibility for their own lives?

[lil-minx92]

Should we take more responsibility for our own lives or is it ok to call in the state to look after us (at other people's expense) if we for example decide we are unable to work, dont want to work, develop a drug problem, get pregnant when you're skint, lose your house, lose your job, get addicted to gambling, sex, violence, shopping, allow your familiy to outgrow your house etc etc

[melthebell]

no, sit in a onsie watching Jeremy Kyle

[Mister M]

It depends.

 

There can't be a one size fits all people and all circumstances.

 

However it's reasonable that there should be a safety net and provision if there are crises, or if people are handicapped and unable to take care of themselves.

But it is also reasonable that people should be expected to be autonomous and independent so that dignity is not taken away from them.

 

It is interesting that this issue often arises when there is a recession, as it did in the early 1980s and 1990s, when there are few jobs.

When the economy picks up then it is fair to expect people to be more self sufficient.

 

It is also fair when talking of responsibility, that there is a principle of progressive taxation - that those who have the broadest shoulders carry a bit more. I was thinking of very large supermarkets that rely upon the tax system to top the wages of their lowest paid employees. I think that is an example of not taking responsibility.

[Frazer1974]

We should have the modern equivalent of the workhouse - get them doing community-based work, or training for a job.

[Hillpig]

Should we take more responsibility for our own lives or is it ok to call in the state to look after us (at other people's expense) if we for example decide we are unable to work, dont want to work, develop a drug problem, get pregnant when you're skint, lose your house, lose your job, get addicted to gambling, sex, violence, shopping, allow your familiy to outgrow your house etc etc

 

The individual has a right to live in any way he/she sees fit. The state should not fund this lifestyle however.

 

---------- Post added 04-11-2013 at 10:56 ----------

 

It depends.

 

There can't be a one size fits all people and all circumstances.

 

However it's reasonable that there should be a safety net and provision if there are crises, or if people are handicapped and unable to take care of themselves.

But it is also reasonable that people should be expected to be autonomous and independent so that dignity is not taken away from them.

 

It is interesting that this issue often arises when there is a recession, as it did in the early 1980s and 1990s, when there are few jobs.

When the economy picks up then it is fair to expect people to be more self sufficient.

 

It is also fair when talking of responsibility, that there is a principle of progressive taxation - that those who have the broadest shoulders carry a bit more. I was thinking of very large supermarkets that rely upon the tax system to top the wages of their lowest paid employees. I think that is an example of not taking responsibility.

 

The large employers you mention do not make the law, they are in the business of supplying a service and returning value to shareholders. They have no responsibility to their staff other than to pay wages, for work done, accurately and on time. The principle of progressive taxation is a necessary evil in a society that is over governed, over reliant on state interference and totally over politiscised and where the indigenous population are idle workshy and fat.

[ronthenekred]

 

They have no responsibility to their staff other than to pay wages, for work done, accurately and on time.

 

They also have a duty of care within the workplace.

[DeathAxe]

We live in the type of society that, if walking down the street with phone glued to hand, looking down at it, walking into a lamp post; the lamp post gets blamed.

 

Gambling machines getting blamed instead of the idiots that use them, train crossings getting blamed for idiot teenagers ignoring the clear warnings and getting hit, games companies getting blamed for idiot parents letting their kids on their devices with no password protection, running up CC bills for in game purchases. The list goes on.

 

People simply do not take responsibility for their own, or even their children's actions, it is always someone else fault.

[vwkittie]

How is it your own fault if you've been made redundant, for example

[Cyclone]

Should we take more responsibility for our own lives or is it ok to call in the state to look after us (at other people's expense) if we for example decide we are unable to work, dont want to work, develop a drug problem, get pregnant when you're skint, lose your house, lose your job, get addicted to gambling, sex, violence, shopping, allow your familiy to outgrow your house etc etc

 

Do all people take the same amount of responsibility as it is, or do some take more or less than others?

And are all the situations you listed identical, is "don't want to work" the same as "lose your job"?

 

Because if the answer to either of those questions is "No" then I think it's impossible to answer your post...

[ronthenekred]

We live in the type of society that, if walking down the street with phone glued to hand, looking down at it, walking into a lamp post; the lamp post gets blamed.

 

Gambling machines getting blamed instead of the idiots that use them, train crossings getting blamed for idiot teenagers ignoring the clear warnings and getting hit, games companies getting blamed for idiot parents letting their kids on their devices with no password protection, running up CC bills for in game purchases. The list goes on.

 

People simply do not take responsibility for their own, or even their children's actions, it is always someone else fault.

 

A classic case of over simplifying and exaggerating. Perfect DM/rag paranoia.