How much can we reasonably rely on personal responsibility to regulate?

[aelf]

When it comes to things that cause enough social harm but that societies can't give up for whatever reason (whether those reasons are rational or not), there's almost always a divide between those that believe the harm should be mitigated by heavy regulation and those that believe it should be mitigated by personal responsibility.

Of course, guns are the most obvious example of this: Conservatives generally hold that the problem with gun deaths lies with users and, if anything at all, society should help users self-regulate (e.g. through better training or mental healthcare). On the other hand, those who are pro-intervention want more regulation of guns themselves.

But this divide applies to a whole host of other things that are less obviously controversial, even seemingly mundane things like the proliferation of electric scooters (Hong Kong bans them entirely due to issues relating to density, IIRC). Perhaps due to the fact that these things are far less controversial, they also seem to invite arguments that the way to mitigate the harm caused is for users to exercise more responsibility, rather than implementing regulation that interfere with usage.

How far can this argument reasonably be taken?

I think it's absurd to suggest that people should collectively take responsibility, absent any way to make them do so, and expect it to actually work. It seems to me that most people who argue this way are simply not interested in solving the problem or in changing anything. So I don't think this argument carries any water.

Some might say that my position takes too dim a view of humanity, that we should believe people can take personal responsibility or modern society/liberal democracy/the social contract will collapse. Or that if we don't even believe it there's no way we can really solve the problem, since regulation can only do so much and may have its own negative consequences. But this is as good as invoking "thoughts and prayers" to me.

So what do you think? Does this depend on the magnitude of the problem? Or the propensity of people to think rationally about the particular problem? Is there any situation where it could possibly make sense?

 

[Lexicus]

I mean, pretty much any issue you want to name, the solution is to engineer systems that
-reduce the chance for human error
-reduce the scope of consequences of human error

Engineering solutions tend to be expensive. The people who cause the problem don't want to pay for the solution. It's much cheaper to pay some politicians to ignore the problem by pretending it's an issue of "personal responsibility."

 

[mrt144]

Personal responsibility is a canard

1. What is personal responsibility applied to various inflection points?
2. What happens if enough people don't engage in responsible behavior to the point it creates systemic risk to those who are being personally responsible?

 

[Narz]

People take responsibility in response to force, regulation and social pressure.

Telling people nicely not to smoke in certain places doesn't work. Bans work, large positive impact on health of everyone.

People are dumb, stubborn, addicted, we need to be dominated by forces greater than our pathetic individual whims in order to build a better world.

 

[Cutlass]

People don't self-regulate.

 

[metatron]

But this divide applies to a whole host of other things that are less obviously controversial, even seemingly mundane things like the proliferation of electronic scooters (Hong Kong bans them entirely due to issues relating to density, IIRC). Perhaps due to the fact that these things are far less controversial, they also seem to invite arguments that the way to mitigate the harm caused is for users to exercise more responsibility, rather than implementing regulation that interfere with usage.

How far can this argument reasonably be taken?

People don't self-regulate.

I feel the function of organic mutual regulation by way of incidental or at least unmandated shame is missing from the picture.
People regulate themselves, individually or collectively, without state intervention all the time, by way of the social pressure @Narz mentioned, shame etc.

I suppose a crucial point is the visibility of the undesired behavior. The visibility of vaccination dissent is rather limited and so is the visibility of many corporate misbehavior @Lexicus alluded to.

 

[warpus]

How much can we reasonably rely on personal responsibility to regulate?

It seems to me that the only sensible way to approach this is on a case by case basis.

Different scenarios call for a different balance. In the case of Hong Kong regulating certain types of vehicles in a certain way might make sense. In New York something completely different might make sense instead. Different countries, provinces, municipalities, and even individual districts all have unique circumstances, so you probably want a different answer to this question depending on the local set of circumstances

In the end I think it's important to remember that generally speaking humans are morons, but desire freedom. So you want a good balance that will keep society chugging along efficiently

 

[miaasma]

the word "freedom" seems to take a whole other meaning in america

 

[Cutlass]

I feel the function of organic mutual regulation by way of incidental or at least unmandated shame is missing from the picture.
People regulate themselves, individually or collectively, without state intervention all the time, by way of the social pressure @Narz mentioned, shame etc.

I suppose a crucial point is the visibility of the undesired behavior. The visibility of vaccination dissent is rather limited and so is the visibility of many corporate misbehavior @Lexicus alluded to.

People may do so to an extent. But they do so under the threat of external force. Remove that force, and the amount of self regulation falls through the floor.

 

[metatron]

People may do so to an extent. But they do so under the threat of external force. Remove that force, and the amount of self regulation falls through the floor.

Not even just that. As i have noted in the other thread i am being contradicted by anecdotal evidence to an even farther extent there, since in that case even with the force, not the mere threat of it, it didn't work.

 

[Lexicus]

the word "freedom" seems to take a whole other meaning in america

We all declare for liberty; but in using the same word we do not all mean the same thing. With some the word liberty may mean for each man to do as he pleases with himself, and the product of his labor; while with others the same word may mean for some men to do as they please with other men, and the product of other men’s labor. Here are two, not only different, but incompatible things, called by the same name—liberty. And it follows that each of the things is, by the respective parties, called by two different and incompatible names—liberty and tyranny.

~Abraham Lincoln

The contours of the debate really haven't shifted much since then.

 

[aelf]

I feel the function of organic mutual regulation by way of incidental or at least unmandated shame is missing from the picture.
People regulate themselves, individually or collectively, without state intervention all the time, by way of the social pressure @Narz mentioned, shame etc.

I suppose a crucial point is the visibility of the undesired behavior. The visibility of vaccination dissent is rather limited and so is the visibility of many corporate misbehavior @Lexicus alluded to.

Perhaps shame as part of social repercussion is itself a regulating force outside of pure personal responsibility. It can definitely work, but it needs to be an existing mechanism before exhortations about taking personal responsibility can have any real effect.

It seems to me that the only sensible way to approach this is on a case by case basis.

Different scenarios call for a different balance. In the case of Hong Kong regulating certain types of vehicles in a certain way might make sense. In New York something completely different might make sense instead. Different countries, provinces, municipalities, and even individual districts all have unique circumstances, so you probably want a different answer to this question depending on the local set of circumstances

In the end I think it's important to remember that generally speaking humans are morons, but desire freedom. So you want a good balance that will keep society chugging along efficiently

This is generally true, but there's another layer proceeding from this. You've described a general principle on how to manage a society, but when we've decided that there's enough harm from something not to simply let it go unchecked, what do we do? That's the scenario outlined in the OP, and my stand is invoking pure personal responsibility is tantamount to not doing anything.

Giving people absolute freedom to do something is basically deciding that any harm done is the price we pay for that freedom. But in practical situations, this is often not the case. And once we get granular, the question is always how much freedom we should give up.

 

[warpus]

You've described a general principle on how to manage a society, but when we've decided that there's enough harm from something not to simply let it go unchecked, what do we do? That's the scenario outlined in the OP, and my stand is invoking pure personal responsibility is tantamount to not doing anything.

Not doing anything about the gun violence in the U.S. and assuming that "personal responsibility" is going to be enough as a solution is indeed pure insanity. But I do really think that each scenario like this is very unique and needs to be approached on its own merits, individually, on a case by case basis. I don't think it would be possible or useful to come up with a generic approach to these that will work for everything.

 

[Hygro]

Perhaps shame as part of social repercussion is itself a regulating force outside of pure personal responsibility. It can definitely work, but it needs to be an existing mechanism before exhortations about taking personal responsibility can have any real effect.

Yes that exists and existed before bootstrap atomized liberalism.

 

[aelf]

Yes that exists and existed before bootstrap atomized liberalism.

Perhaps more of "existed" in some societies. In some, the culture of shame is much more effective at controlling behaviour than in others, I'm sure that's undeniable. And when I say more effective, it seems to be the case that shame actually often works, as opposed to only working in certain limited circumstances.

So in those societies where the sense of shame in wrongdoing is fairly weak, you can't assume that it will work as a regulatory force as it is.