[mothballed]

Kids are not property of the parents. Because with property rights comes responsibility.

And that's the catch-22 imposed on parents. Society wants to lord over the power as if the child is their property but none of the responsibility. Anything that went wrong is the parent's fault. It's always more and more requirements upon the parent, a nearly one way imposition of power where law or society says what you must do but of course you will bear all the costs. But by god you better not morally outrage someone or they'll have CPS up your ass.

It's largely the cheapest kind of concern. The kind where you mete out punishment out of a sense of smug moral superiority, but never lift a hand to help out for the endeavors you advocate for, only to push them into a sort of moral tragedy of the commons.

These laws only mete out punishment for people failing to obey, not actually provide support, it is essentially theatre of pretending to care about children. Theatre by the most evil of people, those that use kids as political props.

[47282847]

> Because with property rights comes responsibility

Response-ability. The ability to respond. Which you have, if you want it or not, for anything and everything you can respond to.

You see children on the streets getting beat up? Your response-ability. You see someone throwing garbage to the ground? Your response-ability.

What you DO with it, whether you act on it, or you deny to have it, doesn’t matter. It is purely the ability, the capacity to. And not responding is also a response. We typically share response-abilities with others around us who are similarly capable. Ownership doesn’t inherently come with increased response-ability. Power does.

Maybe you are confusing responsibility with (legal) liability?

See also: Duty to rescue https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duty_to_rescue - at least as applied and lived in EU, LatAm, Africa; and some US states on paper

[genewitch]

responsibility:

> "fact or condition of being responsible, accountable, or answerable," from 1780s.

and in the mid 1790s it meant "that for which one is responsible; a trust, duty, etc."

i am not sure where you're getting this "ability to respond" idea from. i understand the ideal, it just won't work with humans, unless we go back to being tribal.

The key point in the etymology is "that for which one is responsible" you have to actually be responsible for some "thing" to have any responsibility.

even "Response" comes from re- + Sponsor, which:

> The general sense of "one who binds himself to answer for another and be responsible for his conduct" is by 1670s.

i am not bound by anyone else on this planet, thanks very much.

[47282847]

> i understand the ideal, it just won't work with humans

I don’t consider it to be something that “works” or not, or an ideal, but as fact of reality. The moment you could act on something totally makes it your own responsibility to do so or not. Your action or inaction will have real world consequences. Whether you can or will be held accountable is independent from that, or what framework you apply to evaluate a “good” response.

We don’t have to agree on definitions of words but that’s not the point I’m making here, which is based on reality/fact/capability to react and respond to an external stimulus. And for those (re)actions you and only you are responsible, as a fact of life, whether you want that or not. Which is how those two definitions relate.

[genewitch]

> The moment you could act on something totally makes it your own responsibility to do so or not

have you really, truly, thought this through? There's hundreds if not thousands of things I could act on right now. I'm not responsible for any of them.

is this like a corollary to "being heroic is being selfless and ignoring the consequences" or something? Is it a generalization of "stimulus/response"? "branching multiverses"?

what i am getting at here, is: is this a circular "you have a responsibility because you can act, therefore you can act because there is a responsibility", is it so generalized as to be meaningless? is it just a misrepresentation of "you can only control [are responsible for] your own actions"?

[47282847]

> There's hundreds if not thousands of things I could act on right now. I'm not responsible for any of them.

In my eyes, you are! In the classical definition, you will at least have to answer/be held accountable for all of that by your later self. Other people invoke external judges but the internal one is typically the toughest of all.

     I am more afraid of the God in me than the god you pray to nightly. —- Jason Molina

Then again, you seem to see it something negative (guilt/blame perhaps), whereas I see it as something that makes me aware of my power, my total sphere of potential influence on the world, and the inherent value of my actions and my existence. To me it is empowering. And for me it’s not about selflessness either, but the opposite. I am responsible to make the best out of my situation, based purely on my own values. It doesn’t get more selfish than that. And again, this is not some moral preaching to me, but simply stating the obvious: Nobody but me is responsible for how I act and how I set my priorities.

[47282847]

Say, a person dies of hunger in India. I am responsible for his death. As much (or as little) as anyone else that was able/capable to stop it from happening. We have that shared responsibility. And this is not an “ideal” or “tribal thinking”. To me, it’s just fact. Physical reality.

If you see a child drowning in a pool in front of you and you do not act, are you responsible for not saving it? I say yes. Now, what difference does it make it you see it happening, or just know about it, and you had the power to stop it? Would it make a difference if you closed your eyes, deliberately, to not see the child drowning that you know is right there in front of you, or would you still be responsible for not saving it but rather looking away? Does it change your responsibility whether you look, or you don’t look, or is it rather the knowing that makes a difference? If you think distance makes a difference, does this mean you running away from the drowning child makes you less responsible than looking right at it?

[genewitch]

this reminds me of, and i mean this unsneeringly, partially of "... the only thing God didn't know, you see, was what it was like to not exist. so, smithereens ... a lot of stuff about probability and religious pennies ... so we're all God's Debris, experiencing."

I may have muddied it.

i think i understand what you mean.