3 ms·

Acting like a grownup means that you realize that not all things that happen to people are their own fault and that you yourself can’t totally avoid bad things

Acting like a grownup means that you realize that not all things that happen to people are their own fault and that you yourself can’t totally avoid bad things no matter how careful you are. It also means to understand that some things can be handled much better by a shared effort instead of everybody on their own. That’s why we have police, firefighters and the military.

thegrimmest 4y ago
I think this is exactly where reasonable people disagree. Some (myself included) feel that acting like a grownup means exactly that everything that nature (not other people) inflicts on you is your responsibility. This includes your house catching on fire or your person contracting a disease.
- linuxdude314 4y ago
  No reasonable person thinks this. If you truly believe this, your perspective have been warped by the culture you are immersed in. It sounds like you don’t find value in living in a society. Try living in a different culture than USA for 6 months to a year and I suspect your eyes will be opened.
  - thegrimmest 4y ago
    I'm not so sure - entire revolutions have been had about this, and extensive documents written, for centuries[1]. Not everyone is a negative utilitarian. I value living a society where cooperation is (maximally) voluntary. Involuntary cooperation is indistinguishable from a degree of slavery. 1. https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/rightsof.asp https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/rightsof.asp
    - bombolo 4y ago
      Declaration of human rights was about the right to have your house burn down? You always learn some new made up crazy thing on the internet!
      - thegrimmest 4y ago
        No, it's about not being forced into compulsory insurance schemes in various disguises.
        bombolo 4y ago
        Can you quote the specific bit that supports your point? Because I see some bits that go in the other direction.
        thegrimmest 4y ago
        > Liberty consists in the freedom to do everything which injures no one else; hence the exercise of the natural rights of each man has no limits except those which assure to the other members of the society the enjoyment of the same rights. These limits can only be determined by law. Point being that liberty itself is a value that it is reasonable to optimize over negative utilitarianism.
        bombolo 4y ago
        > Law can only prohibit such actions as are hurtful to society. Willfully becoming a homeless drifter is in fact hurtful to society :)
        thegrimmest 4y ago
        This is actually the main point of contention. Prior to United States v. Butler, the government's power to provide general welfare was limited/narrowly interpreted. Whether individual liberty supersedes general welfare or vice versa is the main disagreement. My point is only that reasonable people can disagree about this.
pdonis 4y ago
Police, firefighters, and military don't have to be provided by governments. There are plenty of historical examples of all three being provided by private institutions (indeed, the article referenced in this discussion talks about such institutions for firefighters in England over a period of several centuries). Nor does charity for those in genuine need need to be provided by governments. Indeed, charity throughout human history has worked best when it is provided by private institutions made up of people who genuinely want to help others, of which there are plenty in the US as there are everywhere, not by government departments staffed by bureaucrats.
JetAlone 4y ago

thegrimmest 4y ago

I think this is exactly where reasonable people disagree. Some (myself included) feel that acting like a grownup means exactly that everything that nature (not other people) inflicts on you is your responsibility. This includes your house catching on fire or your person contracting a disease.

linuxdude314 4y ago
No reasonable person thinks this. If you truly believe this, your perspective have been warped by the culture you are immersed in. It sounds like you don’t find value in living in a society. Try living in a different culture than USA for 6 months to a year and I suspect your eyes will be opened.
- thegrimmest 4y ago
  I'm not so sure - entire revolutions have been had about this, and extensive documents written, for centuries[1]. Not everyone is a negative utilitarian. I value living a society where cooperation is (maximally) voluntary. Involuntary cooperation is indistinguishable from a degree of slavery. 1. https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/rightsof.asp https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/rightsof.asp
  - bombolo 4y ago
    Declaration of human rights was about the right to have your house burn down? You always learn some new made up crazy thing on the internet!
    - thegrimmest 4y ago
      No, it's about not being forced into compulsory insurance schemes in various disguises.
      - bombolo 4y ago
        Can you quote the specific bit that supports your point? Because I see some bits that go in the other direction.
        thegrimmest 4y ago
        > Liberty consists in the freedom to do everything which injures no one else; hence the exercise of the natural rights of each man has no limits except those which assure to the other members of the society the enjoyment of the same rights. These limits can only be determined by law. Point being that liberty itself is a value that it is reasonable to optimize over negative utilitarianism.
        bombolo 4y ago
        > Law can only prohibit such actions as are hurtful to society. Willfully becoming a homeless drifter is in fact hurtful to society :)
        thegrimmest 4y ago
        This is actually the main point of contention. Prior to United States v. Butler, the government's power to provide general welfare was limited/narrowly interpreted. Whether individual liberty supersedes general welfare or vice versa is the main disagreement. My point is only that reasonable people can disagree about this.

pdonis 4y ago

Police, firefighters, and military don't have to be provided by governments. There are plenty of historical examples of all three being provided by private institutions (indeed, the article referenced in this discussion talks about such institutions for firefighters in England over a period of several centuries). Nor does charity for those in genuine need need to be provided by governments. Indeed, charity throughout human history has worked best when it is provided by private institutions made up of people who genuinely want to help others, of which there are plenty in the US as there are everywhere, not by government departments staffed by bureaucrats.

JetAlone 4y ago