Collective Responsibility -v- Individual Responsibility.
 

Recently I've been in a position where my usual acceptance of collective responsiblity has been challenged. It's left me mulling it over.

I've always maintained that I would not vote for something that ran against my conscience, regardless of the group position on that issue. I have also, always maintained that once the group has debated and voted on an issue, that the group position should be held once we walk into the chamber. I think most people in the group share that stance to a lesser or greater degree.

I recently broke the group line. Along with one other group member, I voted against something which the group had taken a position and to which a three-line whip had been applied. The other councillor and myself argued against the group's strategy and were explicit in our intention to vote against, despite the liklihood of diciplinary action being taken. I did this partly through conscience: I am fairly sure that the people who voted for me, and members of the wider party do not support the group's position on this matter. But, the same strategy was entered into last year and I voted for it. This time, I believe the group are a) committing a slow, political suicide and b) have failed to adequately assess the impact that this strategy has had in the previous two years. In other words, the argument has not been sufficiently made this year, but is not in itself one of my absolute 'red lines'.

I was, accused of 'cherry picking' those issues I stand with the group on. Everyone has voted for things they didn't necessarily agree with, because they lost the argument in the group. Disagreement on strategy; unease about a policy. There are times, when we all must swallow our disquiet and show a united face with our party colleagues. I have done, and will no doubt do again. I haven't until now rebelled, because I have not up until now encountered a situation where the argument for has not been good enough to sway me.

So. My question to this board is: in the context of a political party, what role is there for such collective positions?

Collective positioning like this are one reason people in the States get upset at politicians. You voted with the people who voted for you and you voted your conscience. I see nothing wrong in your posiition.

We have a similar situation in our district where an anti-war military veteran ran against a popular Republican with moral's baggage. The anti-war guy won but submitted to Nancy Pelosi's vision of whining and finger-pointing about the war while doing exactly nothing to end it. It may be part of parlimentary democracy that it seems more acceptable in GB.

This is one of the most difficult things about politics, IMO. You're being elected to serve your constituents, but you also have a conscience and think that your position might be better. Unfortunately, I don't think politicians consider their constituents as much as they should.

Representing your constituents, is always the right thing. :thumb2:

~snip~I am fairly sure that the people who voted for me, and members of the wider party do not support the group's position on this matter.~snip~

Orly? Best be finding this out then. Hey, run the issue by a couple of people and see if you can get the kind of feedback that will be useful. (from your voters) If they have a cohesive angle that you aren't with, you may have to think this over more.

Insignificant battles can sometimes end up being gigantic. You don't want to be on the wrong end of collective stupidity.

*smiles at Cic* Sound advice Cic.

The strategy agreed by the group is the same strategy we have followed for the past two years. It amounts to a form of power sharing with the largest party. It is described by our group as a one day deal at the council's annual meeting in which we support the largest party to take all the cabinet posts (it's a hung council, no overall control). In exchange our group are supported by them to take all scrutiny chairs.

The argument for is one of effective opposition through the scrutiny system....the argument against is that we, the smallest party, and they, the largest party, have carved up all the most powerful or useful positions in the council, excluding the second largest party.

The largest party in our council is our historic enemy, the conservative party. To say it sticks in my craw to vote them onto anything is an understatement. I was convinced to do it, for my first two years as councillor. Now, I realise that the opportunities for effective opposition that come with those roles are not great enough, not plentiful enough, to warrant supporting a conservative cabinet.

On the doors, I have had people tell me there's no point in voting labour, they just give it to the conservatives.

Amongst party comrades, I have come across very few who support this strategy. When I thought it was the best way of representing our constituents' best interests, I defended the strategy to those members. I am no longer convinced.

Seems to me, in the minds of the great unwashed, that arrangement would make the conservative party & your party, the government. So any distaste for the governments actions, falls on your two parties.

Bingo!

'cept we're talking about council rather than government, but yes. This is a big problem. There is a great deal of confusion amongst the electorate as to how council works and who is in charge of it. Because ten years ago our party had control of the council a lot of people still think we're in charge. Every time one of our lot appear in the paper as a Chair of one of the Scrutiny Panels, the electorate just think we're the decision makers. It all sounds like the executive unless you know how the council works.

And frankly.....some of our people seem to have 'gone native'....they're more interested in smoothing the waters for council decisions than in being the opposition. Not all....some of them want to do this because they genuinely believe that they can be nore effective through this system...but I find it hard to believe that 8K a year additional allowance plays no part in the decision.

Sometimes politicians 'cross the floor' because they simply disagree with the party line. It happened in federal parliament here a while ago. Here's a snip from an article about it.

And again here (from wiki for want of a better source)

He still holds office.

I believe if your constituents have voted you in for a particular reason, then you should always support their views, not the views of your party. Ideally, if you demonstrate your ability to do so as a member of a party, you then have the option of a very strong career as an independant candidate (if you have that option there).

Wait! There's money involved? Well then to hell with the voters, gimme, gimme, gimME. :yelgreedy

There are no collective rights or collective responsibilities. There are only individual rights and individual responsibilities.

That'd mainly be in your world Radar.

you'll find plenty of literature supporting the idea of collective responsibility. BTW, did you notice that no one even mentioned rights? The topic of the thread is about responsibility.

It'd be nice if we didn't have to have another thread ruined with your crap.

Rights and responsibilities can't be separated and I made an accurate statement. Individuals have rights and responsibilities, groups don't.

Whether you like this or agree with it doesn't matter. Also, you are the one who wrecks threads, not me. Don't get mad because I correct you when you're wrong, which is most of the time.

There is no conceit in Radars family.....he has it all. :rolleyes:

People definitely have responsibilities to groups, radar. If you make a deal, an arrangement, with a group, for which they will do X and Y which helps you and, in return, you do Z which helps them. It's really the same concept that government operates under. You give up a little bit of freedom to the government in exchange for government services. EVERY government works under this principle. It's only a matter of degree.

Wrong. Governments isn't about giving up a single speck of freedom in exchange for services. Government is about protecting our freedoms without infringing on any of them.

By all means give me an example of of how a group has a responsibility?

You seem to have been mentioning the military. In the military each individual voluntarily takes responsibility onto themselves by taking an oath to do such. Without an oath accepting personal responsibility to do certain things, they don't have those responsibilities.

Responsibilities are to be taken on INDIVIDUALLY. All government power, all responsibilities, and all rights are from individuals. There is no such thing as a collective right or a collective responsibility.

Whether you like it or agree with it doesn't matter. You're wrong. :)

I don't think Radar is being a pain. I think he's putting forward an interesting perspective on this. The whole point of the thread was to explore different approaches to politics.

Radar, leave government out of it. In place of the word government put society.

Does the individual have any responsibility to society? Here are some moral questions to ponder to make the point.

If your neighbor is planning to shoot up a major university, and you overhear him planning it, do you have a responsibility to let somebody know?

You have 100 gallons of sewage left over from your last big shindig. You can't move it, but you find you can easily dump it down a hill where people walk to work every day. At the least it'll make people retch; at most it'll make somebody sick. Nobody will know you did it. Do you have a responsibility not to?

You live on the 35th floor of a condo complex because they ensure your private property rights. The guy on the 36th floor accidentally falls off his balcony, and saves himself by snagging your flagpole. The only thing saving him from certain death is your flagpole and he is now hanging off it. As you know, private property is one of the centerpieces of your approach. So is it perfectly moral to take a hammer to his fingers because he is trespassing on your pole?

Well I'd just like to ask - if Gov't has a responsibility to its citizens? OR if as a member of an organization, does that organization therefore have a responsibility to me?

UT, Society is nothing but a bunch of individuals. The only responsibility any individual has to other individuals is to not to endanger them or violate their rights.

If I overhear my neighbor plotting to shoot up a major university, I most certainly don't have a responsibility to tell people, though morally it would be the right thing to do.

Dumping Sewage onto the property of others is trespass. It's a violation of the rights of others and endangers others. I don't have a right to do this. As I said, the only responsibility I have toward others is that I don't endanger them or violate their rights.

As to the flagpole. I don't have a responsibility to save the man, but I do have a responsibility not to further harm or endanger him. Taking a hammer to his hands is wrong, but asking him not to hang from your flagpole again is not.

All "society" really is, amounts to a bunch of individuals who have agreed not to fuck with each other and to offer a "common defense". When there were no governments, villages rose up because murderers or thieves would prey on those who were alone. By sticking together and agreeing to not fuck with each other, but to defend each other when someone attacks, they were able to live longer. There is strength in numbers.

Government absolutely has a responsibility to its citizens but not a responsibility to give them food, clothing, shelter, education, medicine, or morality. The citizens are the creators of the government. Government is their servant, and the citizens are its masters. Government may only have the powers that we, as individuals, on our own if a government didn't exist, and only those which are specifically granted to the government. Government is never above the citizens.

And people wonder why the Prophet Mohammed's requests that a woman dress "modestly" a century ago have led to women virtually imprisoned and treated as chattel in some Arabic countries.

All intentions can be corrupted, and the more you adhere to the letter of the law the less you percieve the wrongs it was intended to address.

OK, well if we go ahead and say that everyone is an individual and as such acts on their own behalf and no one elses, that's fine. I then put it to you that every individual weighs up what benefit they're going to get from making a collective decision and then cuts their losses on the option which will give them the least benefit.

So, sure we're all individuals and make individual decisions, but some of us have more of a social conscience and are motivated by different things, so what one individual might see as a benefit of collective decision making, another will just see it as someone trying to force their way of thinking on them.

Of course there's a line, but for everyone it's different. We all weigh up the pros and cons of every decision we make (unless we really don't care about anyone except ourselves, and even then we still consider what is going to be the greatest benefit to ourselves), and most of us do think about how our decisions will affect others, even if it's only our nearest and dearest which we consider. Some people have a broader world view though, and might consider that our actions will affect people that we don't even know. That is what collective responsibility is all about in my opinion.

Each and every thing humans do or don't do is motivated by self interests. We do things either to gain pleasure, or to avoid pain. More often the latter than the former.

Kohlberg suggested sex stages of moral development and your statement is locked at stage two.

Everything breaks down to level 1, though within level 2 I agree with number 4. The only difference between me and many others is that I don't recognize the government as my authority. I know that I am the authority over the government and that no legitimate laws infringe on the rights of people.

As to level 3, I disagree that there is an unwritten social contract, though I do believe in universal ethical principles. I believe this principled conscience occurs at an individual level. We each have our own conscience, we don't have a collective one.

I think when you say "break down" you're thinking more of a hierarchy of needs situation, which is addressed by Maslow, who says that people don't consider their higher-being needs until their lower-being needs are met:

http://cellar.org/2008/maslow.png

Kohlberg is more of a developmental stages matter. For the most part, when you're a child, you're in level 1 morality. As you move to adolescence and adulthood, you move to more of a level 2 morality. And so forth.

I disagree. At every stage of your life from birth to death, everything comes down to the avoidance of pain or the desire for pleasure. This just gains more facets as you get older. For instance, my desire to avoid pain would not preclude endangering myself to save my family, because I would find the idea of my child being harmed as more painful than myself being harmed.

Even charity comes down to this. People give to charity for the good feeling they get inside when they do it. It is purely a selfish act, as is having children in the first place. I readily admit it.

I suppose where we disagree is that I don't consider morality to be in opposition to protecting your self-interests. They aren't mutually exclusive. One can fulfill their own self-interests while still maintaining a strong morality.

I'm not lacking in anything on your pyramid. I have been at various times in my life, but right now things are really clicking for me. I'm doing well in my personal life, my career, etc. I'm getting along with everyone in my family and personal circle. In fact if I had to pick one area where I needed more focus, it would be my physical conditioning.

I'm so busy with the other stuff, I've slipped in this area. I'll eventually find balance there too.

UT, you should know Kholberg is wrong. Radar says so.

Me, and human nature. But other than that, pretty much every behavioral psychologist on earth.

So you believe that human beings are unable to escape their base nature? If so, why do you bother cooking your meat? Why not just eat it raw like the other animals.

Our ability to feel empathy and then to act on it is what separates man from beast.

I don't recall saying that. I did say that human beings, like all other animals on earth, act in their own self-interests and are also complex enough creatures that they can practice self-sacrifice when they feel it suits their greater needs...say giving up your life to save your child would serve your desire to protect them.

All I'm really saying is that altruism does not exist. It's a myth. There is no such thing as a truly selfless act. We we help those in need, we do so because it makes us feel good inside.

Well I don't think anyone mentioned the word altruism. It's also important for you to note that just because someone might have a social conscience and be willing to agree to collective responsibility, doesn't mean they're acting out of altruistic intentions, either knowingly or otherwise. It simply means that the good of the group has a higher priority than the good of the individual for some people.

How very Vulcan of you. Here on Earth though, people don't put the needs of the many ahead of their own needs. This is why communism always fails. It violates human nature.

I don't live in an imaginary world where people don't have feelings Radar - because of course, that's how vulcans live right? No emotions. Rather, my point is almost to the opposite where people respond to their emotions and so therefor feel a sense of obligation for whatever reason. Rightly or wrongly according to your rather insular world view, this is how society works. That's why we live in societies and not as sentient beings who only associate by chance.

If you're going to make smart arse remarks, you should at least get your facts straight.

I wasn't discussing emotions. I'm already familiar with the fact that the vast majority of women argue with emotions rather than logic and reason. When it comes to separating emotion from logic, facts, and reason, men are naturally better. I wasn't taking a shot at you before....but that was a nice little jab.

I was referring to the Vulcans in Star Trek using the phrase "The needs of the many must outweigh the needs of the few or the one."

Here's a nice little web page discussing the morality of the "Needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few" philosophy...

http://hubpages.com/hub/The_Good_of_...ity_in_Command

FFS Radar. Get in the real world for a minute. This is not about a movie. The fact that someone thought it'd be interesting to create a character out of an entirely inhuman set of behaviours doesn't mean it has any relevance in this discussion. In fact, the only relevance it does have is to suggest that the creator of the character knew it wasn't possible for a human being to behave that way, hence the character was an alien and in fact, spock even started to exhibit more human behaviours after spending time with humans. So if you want to analyse star trek, go ahead, but it's not supporting your argument at all.

The character of Spock shares the same belief system as you. He shares the common belief that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few or of the one. But if you would prefer a non-fiction example of some people shared this philosophy, we can look at Karl Marx (though even he wasn't a Marxist), Frederick Engels, Vladimir Lenin, Joseph Stalin, Leon Trotsky, Ernesto 'Che' Guevara, Mao Tse Tung, Ho Chi Minh, Fidel Castro, Pol Pot, etc.

The vast majority of them were murderers and at the very least...authoritarians in the extreme. They had to be that way because collectivism in the form of communism violates human nature, and it requires brutal force to exist.

Individualism and self-reliance in a capitalist platform on the other hand, don't require any force, and actually work in real life without harming or violating the rights of anyone.

No, that's not what I believe Radar. You are once again projecting your interpretation of what I've posted onto what it means.

I never once said that in all cases, the needs of many should be considered above the needs of the individual. Nor did I suggest the contrary. Sometimes the needs of the individual are higher from my point of view, other times they are not. I believe you will find this to be the case for almost every living soul. How I prioritise needs varies from others because of my past life experiences and my current situation as with every other human being on the planet.

Sometimes I even think my needs are more important than anyone elses. Other times I don't. Sometimes I think the needs of my society are more important than my personal needs. Sometimes I think the needs of my children are more important than the needs of other people's children. Sometimes I think other people's childrens needs are more important than my childrens needs. Sometimes I think my needs are more important than my childrens needs. Sometimes I think the needs of a stranger are more important than mine. Are you getting the picture?

As an individual, I can make these judgement calls because I have a social conscience and I'm able to consider the idea that sometimes other people or groups are more important than me.

:headshake Are you for real? You really need help man... seriously.

I say that my needs and those of my loved ones are all that I need to be concerned about...and that is plenty. I put my family above all others on earth. I don't have any responsibility to "society" or a "social conscience". I have an individual conscience, and I consider my individual rights to be more important than the desires or perceived needs of every other person on earth combined.

If everyone on earth did what was best for themselves and practiced self-reliance, most people would have what is best for them.

OK then, let's assume there's a place where you can live your individual life (with your family which is not a group, they're individuals too) and you fend for yourself and supply everything you need for your family.

What happens if there's some kind of uprising in the community and you're forced to defend your home with what you have, but you know your neighbour has better defenses (now let's stay on track and stick to the scenario regardless of whether you 'think' you'll have the best defenses personally in this fantasy land you're dreaming of). You've always been neighbourly with this neighbour. He has no qualms with you and certainly bears you no ill will, and yet, he doesn't have to let you and your family into his fortress. I suppose you could try and take it by force, but remember, he has better defenses than you and more money. He's as rich as no one you've ever known, so you can't buy your way in. What possible motivation do you suppose this neighbour could have for allowing you and your family which you cannot possibly defend, into his sanctuary?

There are any number of reasons. He might want someone to talk to. It might give him a warm and fuzzy feeling to know he was helping someone out. He might want me to pay him back for the money he loaned me. He might want to fuck my wife. Who knows?

The important thing is he would have no obligation to do so morally, ethically, socially, or legally.

Utter bollocks.

However, the idea that even if being 'altruistic', we are in fact acting selfishly is not so ridiculous. The 'selfish gene' is a theory that holds water as far as I can see. HUman's, like every animal, act in their own best interests, even when we appear to be contravening that.

Doesn't, however, answer the political question relating to collective responsibility versus individual responsibility.

Sure it does. We only willingly take on responsibilities that benefit ourselves. We don't have a responsibility to "society". We have a responsibility to ourselves and our loved ones. We have no legitimate responsibilities that we haven't willingly accepted for ourselves. We have no obligation, responsibility, or duty to "society" unless we've willingly and knowingly accepted it.

I think standing for election pretty much counts as accepting that wider duty and responsibility.

However, what I was looking at in this thread was where responsibility to 'party' and the responsibility to electorate meet. In a party system, what is the point of being in, subscribing to and then standing for a political party if you are then going to act as an individual, rather than a component part of the party under whose banner you've been elected? I realise that this is unlikely to be a position you'll find youself in Radar, given your libertarian approach to politics.

Most people here vote for the party first and the individual second. In order to be accepted onto the Party ticket, you have to first accept that you are a part of that Party. In my own case, I believe our group were contravening the party's political agenda. But, there are many instances of good and honourable politicians voting against their own personal views in order to maintain that collective responsibility and there are many instances of good and honourable politicians breaking that collective responsibility. It's one of the little conundrums that comes with a collectivist approach to politics (left and right wing).

Running for office was a choice for two reasons. First, I was asked to by the members of my political party, and second I was tired of people whining about not having a better choice. They told me they voted for Maxine Waters only because they had nobody better to vote for. I said that was a lie, and people in my district would vote for her because of her political party, her gender, or her race even though she's one of the 13 most corrupt members of congress.

I ran and gave my district someone better to vote for. They didn't vote for me, but at least they had the chance to and I had the chance to get libertarian ideals out there. It was also fun (and tiring) to go through the political process....collecting signatures, designing, buying, and handing out campaign materials, putting up signs, etc.

In America, people are under the impression that if you aren't a democrat, you're a Republican or vice-versa.

I say no person of honor or character votes against his own conscience on any issue, even if it's the direction his party wants to take. I certainly wouldn't do it. I utterly reject the notion that any candidate has a "collective responsibility" to vote along with his political party when it violates his own beliefs. For that matter, I reject the notion that "collective responsibility" even exists for anything.

I The Libertarian Party is infested with disaffected Republicans. They are stupid enough to claim there is a libertarian way to support the unprovoked, unwarranted, and unconstitutional war in Iraq despite it violating the 2 core beliefs of libertarianism. Clearly they have tossed their values (and souls) out the window.

I would never vote for any of these people even though we're in the same political party. I'd never vote along party lines if they expected me to vote in line with something that violated libertarian principles.

I am not my political party. In fact I am no longer in a political party. I am an individual.

Maybe in your america, but certainly not in mine.
We got that - most just disagree with you and you really haven't given a compelling argument as of yet.

Way to go again... Mr. Contradiction.

That's gotta be the worst party ever...worse than a teetotaler wedding reception.

:lol2:

I went to one of those once.

I still managed to get smashed, fall over on the dancefloor and then be reprimanded by one of my uncles for getting my younger cousin drunk too.

He might have no 'obligation' to do so, but he might feel that he should anyway. That's the point...that you don't seem to understand. Even if he's doing it to make him feel good about himself deep down, he's still helping you in the process because helping people is what motivates him to feel good about himself.

I say that's a nicer person to know, and probably a better person to know than the person who is motivated purely by helping themselves.

I say the person who is motivated to help himself and the person who is motivated to help others for the good feeling it gives him inside are the same person.

The guy in the house has an icky feeling because his neighbors are going to be slaughtered. He helps himself get rid of this feeling by inviting his neighbors into his neighborhood fortress. Presto! The icky feeling is gone, and his neighbors thank him profusely making him feel like a hero. He's avoided something he doesn't like, and gained something he does like.

Dana, I mentioned earlier in this thread about being an independant candidate. I think being affiliated with a party is a good way to start out in politics. It gives you profile in the community and gets your name out there.

If you oppose the decisions of the party while you're in it on the basis of what your constituents are telling you, then they will respect you for it. You'll make headlines in the local papers (higher profile), and you'll have a platform to jump from if and when you decide to run as an independant because you feel your party no longer serves the needs of the people.

Sure you have a certain responsibility to your party, but at the end of the day, you're there to serve the needs of your constituents and if you feel the party is not meeting them, then you're on a sinking ship anyway.

You'd have to weigh up the pros and cons because ultimately you are an individual but you're part of a group and without that group, I'm guessing there's a good chance you wouldn't be where you are now. Do you owe them any debt of loyalty? Have they backed you up when you've been against the wall? Or are they simply toeing the line against the collective better judgement? Was your argument good enough to sway the majority in the party? If not, why not? Maybe your argument didn't have as much merit as you felt it did? Find out the reasons why it wasn't a good argument. Maybe there's underlying reasons.

In politics more than any other game, people will say one thing and mean another. This you know. Find out why it happened in this particular instance.

As opposed to Radar who doesn't give a shit if his nice neighbour and family are slaughtered.

Hmmm...such a tough choice.

I will inconvenience myself to ensure that I put as little as possible into landfill. I call this my educated social conscience. I don't expect thanks and I will not see the benefits, but I suppose your daughter might be glad people like me had icky feelings in 50 years time.

Isn't part of the human make-up the survival of the species? Don't other animals band together for the good of the collective? Yes, it's because it enhances their chance of survival, but I suggest the survival of the species as a whole is also hardwired in social (pack or herd) animals.

Radar - you're fully entitled to your point of view. You're fully entitled to the dog-eat-dog, it's a jungle out there mentality. But when the zombies attack I'll be down the Winchester with my mates. Safety in numbers you know?

Ali, if I understand this correctly, Dana won't benefit by standing as an independent. It's not Labour party line which is the problem - it's power sharing with an opposite political ideology in order to retain some influence. Something that independents are forced to do by their very nature as a lone voice crying in the wilderness.

Dana - I've said it to you before. You're intelligent enough to weight the consequences and the only person you have to sleep with is yourself. I'm sure you'll do what sits best with you.

The Libertarian Party does not back candidates. They don't contribute to the campaigns of candidates. They don't even give you the mailing list of the members of the party. The Libertarian Party idea of supporting a candidate is shaking their hand and saying "Good Luck"

They did absolutely nothing for me. I, on the other hand, donated thousands upon thousands of dollars over the years in flyers, buttons, yard signs, building outreach booths, and my personal time. I've registered thousands of people to vote (nearly all Libertarian), I've written letters to the editor, I've run meetings, As chairman of the largest county party in America I took a virtually dead county party and worked to make it one of the most powerful counties in California within the party, I served on the executive committee for the party, I attended protests, I won activism awards, I ran for 3 political offices, and I fought tooth and nail to try to keep Republicans from taking over the party...though I failed.

What was my thanks from the party for giving so much of my self? I was asked to leave the Libertarian Party by people who aren't libertarians and who had chased many other long-time, hard working, activist out of the party.

I guess it would depend on the neighbor. Do they have a good looking teenage daughter? LOL

To be honest, I pretty much keep to my self in my current neighborhood. It's a good way to stay safe. Perhaps when I buy a home in a better area, I can get to know my neighbors and maybe...just maybe... care enough about them to invite them into my super underground batcave-like fortress when the shit hits the fan.