Personal Responsibility

Many people would not perform abortions because they believe they are wrong. In that case, I think the law is wrong, so it isn't a good example.

okie wrote:

Many people would not perform abortions because they believe they are wrong. In that case, I think the law is wrong, so it isn't a good example.

But the very fact that morals are playing a role in the discussion of personal responsibility make it a very good example.

You are against abortion, therefore you see a doctor that performs abortions as being immoral. Cycloptichorn is not against abortion, therefore he sees a doctor performing abortions as not being immoral.

I think the issue lies in liable vs. responsible and how the law effects each.

A cop shooting a crook is responsible for his actions, but not liable for them. A doctor performing surgery is responsible for the patient, but not liable. A politician performing his/her job is responsible, but not liable.

I think Cyc wants people to be liable for their actions as well as responsible and until laws change and we welcome the sudden vacuum of politicians, that just ain't gonna happen.

I think Cyc wants people to be liable for their actions as well as responsible and until laws change and we welcome the sudden vacuum of politicians, that just ain't gonna happen.

I think you are flat out wrong, cylcops, according to the law as well as according to plain common sense. I agree with McGentrix.

No, I didn't say that. All I am saying is that they should not bear personal liability for what their job dictates them to do. They are theoretically agents of us, the taxpayers, not themselves.

There is a difference of the above from a politician committing crimes unrelated to his job. You can't see the difference?

okie wrote:

No, I didn't say that. All I am saying is that they should not bear personal liability for what their job dictates them to do. They are theoretically agents of us, the taxpayers, not themselves.

There is a difference of the above from a politician committing crimes unrelated to his job. You can't see the difference?

Of course I can, but we aren't really discussing 'unrelated to their job' activities, as there is no real difference between a politician and everyone else when they aren't at work.

What I mean, though, is actions which are taken under the realm of 'doing their job.' I will ask you again: does Bush, for example, bear personal responsibility for the Iraq war and the events which have ensued?

Where do you get the opinion from that, under the aspects of 'doing their job,' politicians should not be held liable for their actions? That their judgment isn't similar to all of ours, as we are 'doing our jobs?'

I think that saying 'what their job dictates them to do' is a slippery sentence. It's difficult to define what a politiicans' job 'dictates them to do.' And it's not clear how that removes their responsibility to make good decisions.

Cycloptichorn

Cycloptichorn wrote:

okie wrote:

No, I didn't say that. All I am saying is that they should not bear personal liability for what their job dictates them to do. They are theoretically agents of us, the taxpayers, not themselves.

There is a difference of the above from a politician committing crimes unrelated to his job. You can't see the difference?

Of course I can, but we aren't really discussing 'unrelated to their job' activities, as there is no real difference between a politician and everyone else when they aren't at work.

What I mean, though, is actions which are taken under the realm of 'doing their job.' I will ask you again: does Bush, for example, bear personal responsibility for the Iraq war and the events which have ensued?

I figured that is where you are going. I suppose you would like to string up Bush on the nearest hanging tree for war crimes?
The problem with your convoluted thinking is that Bush did not go to Iraq without congressional approval. This is basically just policy that you are trying to spin into some kind of a crime. And it is policy that he did not carry out without full congressional approval and without constitutional power to do it. Are you arguing here that the president does not have war powers any longer? There are so many aspects of your thinking here that is so totally out of whack and without constitutional reasoning here, cyclops. We live in a representative republic, whereas we elect people to make decisions, and to suggest that those decisions made within the scope of the constitution represents criminality is bizarre to say the least, and extremely dangerous at worst.

Quote:

Where do you get the opinion from that, under the aspects of 'doing their job,' politicians should not be held liable for their actions? That their judgment isn't similar to all of ours, as we are 'doing our jobs?'

I think that saying 'what their job dictates them to do' is a slippery sentence. It's difficult to define what a politiicans' job 'dictates them to do.' And it's not clear how that removes their responsibility to make good decisions.

Cycloptichorn

Politicians make good decisions and bad decisions, but as long as it is within the bounds of their authority and not criminal under our legal system, you are really barking up the wrong tree. I suspected your thread was really misdirected from the start, but it is worse than I thought. If this is how you think, you need to take a serious look at your thinking.

One last clarification, Bush is responsible for his decisions, but not legally, as long as he is acting within the authority given him by the government and the constitution. There is no evidence whatsoever that he has overstepped his bounds. And even where that accusation has been leveled at him in regard to certain policies, such as FISA, if his government attorneys have given him legal advice that he has authorization, he is still on very solid ground.

Bush is responsible for his decisions, politically, cyclops. And you have the freedom of speech to call it a debacle. So, what is your point? I don't think you had one. None of this is anything new then.

In contrast, if Clinton did commit rape, he was totally responsible legally and should be sitting in jail today, as that had no connection whatsoever with his job. Also, if anybody threatened bodily harm to any person at his behest, he was also acting criminally as an individual. Many other examples could also be used.

The problem is your disagree with going to war in Iraq. I pat him on the back for doing so.

The results could be a lot better, but going into Iraq was the correct course of action (and I am not alone in that opinion). Is Bush responsible? Not individually so, no.

So, you see it as though he is criminally responsible, I see him as doing a job that needed done. This is why morals have no place in the law and certainly should not stop politicians from doing their jobs.

War is dirty business, but it is business that needs done sometimes. Whatever the results of the current crisis in Iraq, going in and being 100% sure of Saddam no longer being a threat, either directly or indirectly was the right course of action.

The fact that others agree with you simply means that many of you are wrong. It does not add validity to your position at all.

I don't seek to hold bush criminally liable for going to war in Iraq, and I have never stated this; so please don't suggest that this is 'how I see it.' I think that Bush is responsible as he holds the position of ultimate responsibility; it's the flip-side of the power he wields, as you should realize.

You think that because someone is not individually responsible for an action, they are not responsible at all? I agree that Congress shares some complicity in this mistake, but that doesn't remove Bush's responsibility for the erroneous choices he made. There really can't be any argument that the WMD angle was either lies or complete errors on their part; do you hold them responsible for that error?

Cycloptichorn

The fact that others agree with you simply means that many of you are wrong.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

The fact that others agree with you simply means that many of you are wrong.

This is the only real quibble I have with your thread here. It appears to be predicated on an assumption that there is only one moral "right" or "wrong" on any given issue and for most public officials, that, IMO, is seldom the case.