a common reproach towards a failed moralizer is that "he expects them to hold to a standard of conduct that himself cannot maintain." does this mean that it is right to expect everyone to exercise a given level of self-discipline, so long as you yourself have always done so, or so long as some exemplary person you know has done so?
two discussions during the weekend are relevant.
1. "they are content to sit there on public assistance and never aspire to anything higher. my father had nothing but a suitcase with one change of clothing and thirteen dollars, coming off the plane in memphis, tennessee, and he lost that money on a slice of pizza he spit out and a cab fare to a house whose owner wasn't there to answer the door. he became a millionaire."
2. a) "i've heard that you are better off refusing the sobriety test."
b) "let me explain how simple it is to you people! it's the easiest thing in the world. do whatever the hell you want. just don't drink and drive! when are people going to start taking responsibility for themselves and not just trying to use a lawyer to help them get away with doing
ce qui leur bon semble. you people, this country, nobody wants to take responsibility. you get fat and you sue mcdonald's for crying out loud."
responsibility is a great virtue, and people should be expected to act responsibly, but to what extent is it right to
compel them to be responsible? expectation can be done by everybody, but compulsion can only be done by those with power over others. it is commonly held that freedom compels responsibility, and those who wish for freedom should accept the responsibility that comes with it. likewise, it is held that those who cannot act responsibly can have their freedom restricted. i think the matter is not so simple. freedom and responsibility are related, of course, but levels of personal freedom and responsibly can be optimized through governance. a government that does not carry out this optimization ably limits freedom while increasing responsibility, and one that does it well maximizes freedom while minimizing responsibility.
i see features of american society where freedom is sold to people too dearly.
guns: we have the right to own and carry a gun. the freedom that comes with having a gun, as best i can figure, is being able to enforce the peace on your own property, to defend yourself through gunfighting, and to supplement your and your beloveds' diets with game meat. the responsibility of having a gun is, of course, to not endanger peoples' lives with it. many foolish people get jailed when they use a gun to settle a personal dispute, to facilitate a robbery or to provide security for an illegal business. irresponsible people lose their freedom because they abuse their right. but is it worth vomiting out some of the lower elements of society so that the responsible majority can enjoy this freedom? how much do we really gain from being able to defend our person and our property with a gun? why should we have to do this ourselves? isn't security one of the most basic services that is required of the government? as individuals, we might have guns, but the government still claims and almost complete monopoly on violence.
cars: cars are the only thing to which americans believe they are more entitled than to guns. the benefit of the car is that it lets you transport yourself and your cargo great distances in a short amount of time at low cost. you can go anywhere you want for whatever reason. the responsibility is identical to that for guns: that you don't endanger others' lives with your car. and so you can lose your freedom if you do not respect your car's power and you operate it recklessly, especially if you kill someone else with your car. much like guns, i notice that many people do not derive much enjoyment from cars, though they still bear all the responsibility of using them. you do not feel a sense of freedom in using your car if you have to use it in order to hold a job, to buy food, or to meet with your friends. in this circumstance, the car becomes more of a burden than a freedom when you consider the costs of maintenance, insurance and fuel. wouldn't it be more just to offer city dwellers a form of transport which has a predictable cost, which is reliable and convenient, which you can ride even if you are asleep, drunk or distracted?
as i said, responsibility is something to admire and to aspire to, but the more responsibility you demand, the more you risk oppressing irresponsible people.