[This is part of a series of posts on Friedrich A. Hayek's The Constitution of Liberty. Here's the full list.]

The word responsibility is often used as a synonym for duty, something others tell you to do. In this sense the word is contradictory to individual freedom. Others use responsibility in a metaphysical sense, as something being given to us by God, or by nature of our supposed "free will". But there's a better meaning of responsibility: the concept of holding people accountable for their actions in order to influence their behavior.

Responsibility then becomes a way of saying "if you succeed in this, you get the reward, if you fail, you pay the cost", not for any abstract reason, but simply because it encourages you to use your resources and knowledge to the best of your ability, which is the whole purpose of individual freedom.

Though [responsibility] can offer to the individual only chances and though the outcome of his efforts will depend on innumerable accidents, it forcefully directs his attention to those circumstances that he can control as if they were the only ones that mattered.

Responsibility is not a metaphysical property, but a context for people to act in. It does not "exist" in any natural way, (and it certainly does not follow from the concept of a soul), it is instead something that is deliberately invented and assigned to us by society, as a general motivation for us to act or not act in certain ways.

Strictly speaking, it is nonsense to say, as is so often said, that "it is not a man's fault that he is as he is", for the aim of assigning responsibility is to make him different from what he is or might be. If we say that a person is responsible for the consequences of an action, this is not a statement of fact or an assertion about causation. .. Rather, [it] aims at making his actions different from what they would be if he did not believe it to be true. We assign responsibility to a man, not in order to say that as he was he might have acted differently, but in order to make him different.

As a force of motivation, responsibility is essential to individual freedom. Conversely, we can't give individual freedom to people who can't handle responsibility - like children or the insane. Individual freedom assumes an ability to be influenced by the outside world and by the prospect of living with the consequences of our actions. Most adults have that ability.

Individual responsibility is "unfair", in the sense that we may have abilities we are not rewarded for, or we are punished with failure for reasons beyond our control. The owner of a company which goes broke may not have been at "fault" as such even if he is held responsible - the world is chaotic, and events may unfold as they do for no logical reason. But as long as people have some ability to influence their own success, assignment of responsibility makes sense as a way to motivate them to use that ability.

The outcome could still be perceived as unfair, though, and some argue that we need some overall concept of entitlement to compensate for this unfairness. That person is a failure, but doesn't deserve to be. That company is about to go broke, but it should have been successful. Let's do something about it.

But such decisions can only be made by an authority that has knowledge no one person can possibly have. If individual people are in the best position to apply their special knowledge to their unique circumstances, how can an outsider decide that something "should" have worked out better than it did? That a product would have been successful, or a person a success, if not for some accident? There's no way for anyone to have that knowledge. So we must accept unfairness, within limits, and focus instead on providing everyone with the motivation and opportunity to use their abilities as best they can.

Responsibility is a tool, which should be used deliberately in areas where it can have a beneficial effect, in order to provide a foundation for individual freedom. Anything else is metaphysical voodoo.

http://www.city-journal.org/html/15_2_oh_to_be.html

"Responsibility then becomes a way of saying "if you succeed in this, you get the reward, if you fail, you pay the cost", not for any abstract reason, but simply because it encourages you to use your resources and knowledge to the best of your ability, which is the whole purpose of individual freedom"
We definately do this with children as well, and even dogs. You cannot say that dogs have a free will. For dogs it is merely a tool for control.

"If individual people are in the best position to apply their special knowledge to their unique circumstances, how can an outsider decide that something "should" have worked out better than it did? That a product would have been successful, or a person a success, if not for some accident? There's no way for anyone to have that knowledge"

I think actually that there are often opportunities for people looking in to see things that the people inside cannot see. You might call it looking with fresh eyes. And, you might also be a bit optimistic if you think all people who work professionally on something are the best person to do the job they are doing.

Allan: We definately do this with children as well, and even dogs. You cannot say that dogs have a free will. For dogs it is merely a tool for control.

Then you're talking about laws, concrete rules of behavior. Responsibility is more general. It's the difference between saying "if you steal a car you go to jail" and "if you buy a car and regret it that's your problem".

I think actually that there are often opportunities for people looking in to see things that the people inside cannot see.

Yeah, but how would you verify that? Except by putting their ideas to the test. Which is what insiders to all the time.

And, you might also be a bit optimistic if you think all people who work professionally on something are the best person to do the job they are doing.

Not any one individual, no. But on the whole, knowledge is distributed in all kinds of unpredictable ways, and the best way to exploit it is by giving everyone the freedom to use that knowledge.

How would you apply Hayek's ideas to the problem of drug addiction?

It feels too cold to say, well, these druggies chose this lifestyle and should be held responsible for it. And I would say that drug addicts are *not* necessarily "in the best position to apply their special knowledge to their unique circumstances."

"Then you're talking about laws, concrete rules of behavior. Responsibility is more general. It's the difference between saying "if you steal a car you go to jail" and "if you buy a car and regret it that's your problem"
I dont really see the difference. Don't misunderstand me, I do support responsibility and the rule of law in society, but how you said it has no difference to how we treat dogs. Say in the instance of dogs "If you pee inside, you will suffer the consequenses", or "If you sit when I tell you to, you will be given treat". I guess the real difference is that dogs don't have a say in what the rules are, while in a democracy, we all determine the rules together.

Besides, I also think that we should as citizens be taught ethics in order not to break the law. This would encurage less cynical exploitation of the system. For instance, in todays society we are taught not drive fast because we might be caught and get a fine (or worse). A better way of stopping people from driving fast in my mind would be to tell people that "you don't drive fast because it is dangerous and you might be killed" and in some way (which might be more challenging), make us understand that this really is true and it applies to YOU also. And that's responsibility, free responsibility, not forced.

I guess that is something like the discussion you had about responsible piracy. According to this system, the only way to stop piracy is to punish the pirates. Both you and I know that will never work. Teaching them that it is wrong, and why, and that it applies to them as a person, might not stop piracy, but people might be more responsible in the end, and pay the artists they think deserve more credit.

yeah, I think drug-addicts are also a great example of how this form of responsibility just does not work.

Elise: How would you apply Hayek's ideas to the problem of drug addiction?

My view is that being addicted to heavy drugs is an illness, and should be treated like one. It's not a lifestyle choice (choice left the picture long ago), and it's not a crime (they only harm themselves). And what's the purpose of holding them responsible the rest of their lives for picking up an addiction? It can't influence their future actions, the addiction has already happened. All it does is stand in the way of treating their illness.

Allan: I dont really see the difference.

You're right, bad example. The point here is that a more complex concept of responsibility is needed to support individual freedom than just associating a particular action with an outcome. Your dog can obey rules, but it can't be free, because you can't give it money and tell it that it's responsible for finding something to eat.

Besides, I also think that we should as citizens be taught ethics in order not to break the law. This would encurage less cynical exploitation of the system.

You do need unwritten laws, but it shouldn't be the state that teaches them to us. If the laws are exploitable, it's better to fix the exploit than to encourage people not to use it. Explaining why a law exists sounds good, but there's a danger that the party in power launches propaganda campaigns to convince us to support their policies.

According to this system, the only way to stop piracy is to punish the pirates. Both you and I know that will never work.

That's a different situation, because the law is ineffective as a weapon against piracy. But that's not usually the case with other crimes.

The really inteeresting and very good book that explores this subject in detail is by Thomas Sowell "A conflict of Visions" in which he describes two visions of human discourse: a "constained" vision of human nature which sees human nature as unchanging with the consequence that government should be used to set limits (e.g. Adam Smith and Hayek) and an "unconstrained" vision which sees human nature as malleable and perfectable (e.g. William Godwin and Thomas Paine). Sowell is an economist at the Hoover Institute and writes beautifully. The book is well worth the read.

I'd say rather Hayek doen't actually see human nature as unchanging, he sees it as being molded by culture, and culture as evolving in response to circumstances.

It's not that people can't change, it's that human nature and human society are complex beyond our understanding. It's easy enough to change the environment in such a way as to cause a change in behavior - it's impossible to predict how behavior will change in response to any given change in environment except in the most radically simple of cases.

As for the "perfectability" of man, Hayek's position seems to be that our understanding of how social systems work is so fundamentally limited that we have no ability to grasp what a "perfect" society would look like.

Most such "perfect" societies, all the way back to Plato, have been fundamentally static - which is equivalent to saying that they are dead.

Hayek believes societies evolve toward more effective use of their resources, or they die. Which is, to say, they become more perfect.

He just lacks the hubris to claim that we can know what more perfect is in advance.

Jdege. Well said. I over generalized in my description of the book

"You do need unwritten laws, but it shouldn't be the state that teaches them to us. If the laws are exploitable, it's better to fix the exploit than to encourage people not to use it. Explaining why a law exists sounds good, but there's a danger that the party in power launches propaganda campaigns to convince us to support their policies."

But what is the difference? The laws are there to control us (punish wrong behaviour, and very bad way of teaching, according to many learning theories) anyways. If we are taught that such and such is wrong, because.. for instance it inhibits andother person's freedom, then I really don't see the difference.

I do not think that you are correct. Firslty, if no free will exists, absolutely everything are factors that you do have no control over, and it is actually possible to acertain what you deserve in comparison to others.

Secondly, you do not have to know for sure what is completely fair. All you you have to know is that the regulations that you go thru with, actually makes society more fair.

Thirdly, Hayek like any other libertarian or close to libertarian completely ignore the legitimacy. As I Wrote in another thread that noone really answered, a system that is very unfair does not have legitimacy, and those who are treated very unfairly have no moral obligation to accept the system.

In such a way, libertarian doctrine actually legitimizes communist violent takover.

The idea of relating fairness and law ultimately means fair to whom? In that sense it is "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" or very subjective. That is not the purpose of law. Law means predictability in terms of outcome. Some laws are always unfair to someone since laws by tho9er nature are general and injury is specific. The best you can ask for "due process" in the application of law which means the right to be heard without penalty. The fact that the rest of society does not agree with you does not mean a law is unfair. In that sense order is ascendant and allows society to function in a more predictable way. It is not an answer to respond that such a practice may lead to a dictatorship. Most laws have a moral basis, even if imperfect, and most laws to be effective also require a general consensous that the law is a proper response to a given situation. At bottom, it is the function of the citzenry to guard against bad laws and repeal them. When citizens abdicate that responsibility, it has nothing to do with bad laws; it is about silence in the face of bad government.

I think that much of the arguments put forward by Herbie are false. What the rightwing have done is to select a certian kind of fairness, called it "justice", and claimed that that defintion of fairness goes above all other defintions, and that is false. There are just as many different notions of "justice" as it is "fairness". Not everyone agree that theft is wrong, and serial killers and gangbangers doesn`t think murder is wrong, does that mean that we have to legalize crime because people do not agree on it?

The whole problem is that the libertarian argument rests on a false assumption, some kind of "natural rights" that certainly does not exist. The libertarian notion of justice is just as subjective as any other notion of justice.

When it comes to fairness, there are several forms of fairness, and it is possible to agree on some of them. I define fairness as that your destiny is a result of factors that you yourself can control and predict. Even if you do not agree upon the exact definition of fairness, it may be possible to reach some disagreement upon which factors you can control and which you cant`t. The reason to claim that "fainress is subjective" is just a trick of the right, because they really haven`t got any chance of winning such a debate, because the degree of control over own life they claim to believe in really does not belong in a post-newtonian world.

OT:

IIRC, Bjorn, you read Revel's book, now there's one by Philippe Rooger, The American Enemy. I just picked it up today, read about it in The Telegraph.

I love this net.

Pee Wee I don't think you understood what I said. Please reread it and then comment again. As for your statement: "I define fairness as that your destiny is a result of factors that you yourself can control and predict"; there are so many inconsistencies and assumtions in that statement that I could spend an hour picking at it.

I think it is you that does not answer my arguments. If that was so easy to pick apart, then why don`t you do it? The net is full of libertarians that come out strong, and then run with their tail between their legs.

To say that the law should have nothing to do with fairness is in itself a subjective statement. What you really do is take the so-called "rights" for granted.

And fairness as I defined it, and many other forms of fairness for that matter is no more subjective than justice. What is just is also something that is different for some people. When it comes to what is the causes for certain outcomes, that is really not a subjective matter, because every effect has a specific cause.

And why isn`t is an answer that a libertarian set of laws may lead to dictatorship? Why should people not use violence to remove a system that the percieve as extremly unfair? And you are constantly basing your arguments on the non-existant libertarian natural state. The "default" laws of society is not a nightwatcherstate, but a total anarchy.

Peewee Putting aside your sarcasm, you seem so intent on attacking libertarians that you have not really read what I wrote. Actually my analysis is not too far off yours; where we part company is what function the law serves and how it is used. What I said was that law should be predictable and the reason is that it must apply to a myriad of cases and not become case specific. I have to go now; I have a case to get ready for trial. You seem comfortable with law not being used as a predictor. My experience is that it is unworkable if it is not. Justice or fairness can be said to take place if the consequences of an act legally are known.

Okai, I am sorry. It was just that your text seemed less comprehensible for someone not used to it, and not reading it thorough enough. Yes, I do agree that laws should be predictable.

Peewee as for your second point that "And why isn`t is an answer that a libertarian set of laws may lead to dictatorship", I quite agree and it was for that reason that I said "at bottom, it is the function of the citzenry to guard against bad laws and repeal them. When citizens abdicate that responsibility, it has nothing to do with bad laws; it is about silence in the face of bad government."

That being said, libertarians (of which I not yet one, but moving in that direction) do not really advocate laws or at least laws that are cast in a postive tone, e.g. "thou shall" The problem with postive laws is that they are very difficult to enforce. Law is more easily enforced and more easily understood if cast in negative tones, e.g. "it is prohibited." My concern with the libertarien posiition is that it carries a great danger of removing ANY social safety net and it generally impacts on those least able to bear the consequences of the law -- the old and the infirm. I guess at bottom I am somewhere in the middle.

Back to trial preparation :-)

Hayek's position is that the law must be predictable and non-arbitrary.

And that this inherently means that it must be solely concerned with process, and not with outcome.

It cannot be aimed at specific outcomes in specific cases, or it devolves into tyranny, regardless of the motives of the authors of the laws.

To quote:

The Rule of Law was consciously evolved only during the liberal age and is one if its greatest achievements, not only as a safeguard but as the legal embodiment of freedom. As Immanuel Kant put it (and Voltaire expressed it before him in very much the same terms), "Man is free if he needs to obey no person but solely the laws." As a vague ideal it has, however, existed at least since Roman times, and during the last few centuries it as never been so seriously threatened as it is today.

The idea that there is no limit to the powers of the legislator is in part a result of popular sovereignty and democratic government. It has been strengthened by the belief that, so long as all actions of the state are duly authorized by legislation, the Rule of Law will be preserved. But this is completely to misconceive the meaning of the Rule of Law. This rule has little to do with the question whether all action of government are legal in the juridical sense. They may well be and yet not conform to the Rule of Law. The fact that someone has full legal authority to act in the way he does gives no answer to the question whether the law gives him power to act arbitrarily or whether the law prescribes unequivocally how he has to act. It may well be that Hitler has obtained his unlimited powers in a strictly constitutional manner and that whatever he does is therefore legal in the juridical sense. But who would suggest for that reason that the Rule of Law still prevails in Germany?

To say that in a planned society the Rule of Law cannot hold is, therefore, not to say that the actions of the government will not be legal or that such a society will necessarily be lawless. It means only that the use of the government's coercive powers will no longer be limited and determined by pre-established rules. The law can, and to make a central direction of economic possible must, legalize to what all intents and purposes remains arbitrary action. If the law says that such a board or authority may do what it pleases, anything that board or authority does is legal - but its actions are certainly not subject to the Rule of Law. By giving the government unlimited powers, the most arbitrary rule can be made legal; and in this way a democracy may set up the most complete despotism imaginable.

        - F. A. Hayek, "The Road to Serfdom

Ok :-) Well Peewee and I got around to that after a time -- although not perhaps as eloquently as Hayek

Hei Herbie

Got any jokes?

njet: One clean one and a rather good one to follow. Tjhe clean one:
IRELAND DECLARES WAR

Jacques Chirac, the French Prime Minister, was sitting in his office wondering what kind of mischief he could perpetrate against the United States when his telephone rang.

"Hallo, Mr. Chirac!", a heavily accented voice said. "This is Paddy O'Kirby down at the Harp Pub in County Sligo, Ireland. I am ringing to inform you that we are officially declaring war on you!"

"Well, Paddy O'Kirby," Chirac replied, "This is indeed important news! How big is your army?"

"Right now," said Paddy, after a moment's calculation, "there is myself, me cousin Sean, me next door neighbor Seamus, and the entire dart team from the pub. That makes eight!"

Chirac paused. "I must tell you, Paddy, that I have one hundred thousand men in my army waiting to move on my command."

"Begorrah!" said Paddy. "I'll have to ring you back!" Sure enough, the next day, Paddy called again. "Mr. Chirac, the war is still on. We have managed to get us some infantry equipment!"

"And what equipment would that be, Paddy?" Chirac asked.

"Well, we have two combines, a bulldozer, and Murphy's farm tractor."

Chirac sighed, amused. "I must tell you, Paddy, that I have 6,000 tanks and 5,000 armored personnel carriers. Also, I've increased my army to one hundred fifty thousand since we last spoke."

"Saints preserve us!" said Paddy. "I'll have to get back to you." Sure enough, Paddy rang again the next day.

"Mr. Chirac, the war is still on!" We have managed to get ourselves airborne! We've modified Jackie McLaughlin's ultra-light with a couple of shotguns in the cockpit, and four boys from the Shamrock Pub have joined us as well!"

Chirac was silent for a minute and then cleared his throat. "I must tell you, Paddy, that I have 100 bombers and 200 fighter planes. My military complex is surrounded by laser-guided, surface-to-air missile sites. And since we last spoke, I've increased my army to two hundred thousand!"

"Jesus, Mary, and Joseph!", said Paddy, "I'll have to ring you back."

Sure enough, Paddy called again the next day.
Top o' the mornin', Mr. Chirac! I am sorry to tell you that we have had to call off the war."

"I'm sorry to hear that," said Chirac. "Why the sudden change of heart?"

"Well," said Paddy, "we've all had a long chat over a bunch of pints, and decided there's no foo-kin way we can feed two hundred thousand prisoners."

Now for the better one:
Wedded Bliss

On his wedding day, the groom walked down the aisle with a big grin on his face.

His best man said, "I know this is your wedding day but I've never seen you with such a big smile."

The groom whispered, "I just got the best blow job I've ever had."

As the bride walked down the isle she also grinned from ear to ear.

Her bridesmaid said to her, "I know this is the happiest day in your life but I have never seen you with a bigger smile."

To which the bride replied, "I've just given my last blow job."

This is a little more subtle:
A woman awakes during the night to find that her husband was not in their bed. She puts on her robe and heads downstairs to look for him.

She finds him sitting at the kitchen table with a cup of coffee in front of him. He appears deep in thought, just staring at the wall. She watches as he wipes a tear from his eye and takes a sip of coffee.

"What's the matter, dear?" she whispers as she steps into the room, "Why are you down here at this time of night?"

The husband looks up, "Do you remember 20 years ago when we were dating, and you were only 16?" he asks solemnly.

The wife is touched to tears thinking that her husband is so caring and sensitive. "Yes, I do" she replies.

The husband pauses. The words are not coming easily. "Do you remember when your father caught us in the back seat of my car making love?"

"Yes, I remember" says the wife, lowering herself into a chair beside him.

The husband continues, "Do you remember when he shoved a shotgun in my face and said, 'either you marry my daughter, or I will send you to jail for 20 years?'"

"I remember that too" she replies softly.

He wipes another tear from his cheek and says, "I would have gotten out today."

Have to go back to trial prep now :-)

Ok: This has got to be one of the most clever
> E-mails I've received in awhile. Someone out there either has too much spare time or is deadly at Scrabble. (wait till you see the last one)!
>
> DORMITORY:
> When you rearrange the letters:
> DIRTY ROOM
>
> DESPERATION:
> When you rearrange the letters:
> A ROPE ENDS IT

> GEORGE BUSH:
> When you rearrange the letters:
> HE BUGS GORE
>
> THE MORSE CODE:
> When you rearrange the letters:
> HERE COME DOTS
>
> SLOT MACHINES:
> When you rearrange the letters:
> CASH LOST IN ME
>
> ANIMOSITY:
> When you rearrange the letters:
> IS NO AMITY
>
> MOTHER-IN-LAW:
> When you rearrange the letters:
> WOMAN HITLER
>
> SNOOZE ALARMS:
> When you rearrange the letters:
> ALAS! NO MORE Z 'S
>
> A DECIMAL POINT:
> When you rearrange the letters:
> IM A DOT IN PLACE
>
> THE EARTHQUAKES:
> When you rearrange the letters:
> THAT QUEER SHAKE

> ELEVEN PLUS TWO:
> When you rearrange the letters:
> TWELVE PLUS ONE

> AND FOR THE GRAND FINALE:
> PRESIDENT CLINTON OF THE USA:
> When you rearrange the letters
> (With no letters left over and using each letter only once):
> TO COPULATE HE FINDS INTERNS

Since no one has commented:

A man goes to see a shrink. "something terrible is happening and I have to talk to you about it." The Shrink asked, "What's wrong?" The man
replied, "My wife is poisoning me."

The Shrink, very surprised by this, asks, "How can that be?" The man then pleads, "I'm telling you, I'm certain she's poisoning me, what should I do?"

The Shrink then offers, "Tell you what. Let me alk to her, I'll see what I can find out and I'll let you know."

A week later the shrink calls the man and says, "Well, I spoke to your wife. I spoke to her on the phone for three hours. You want my advice?"

The man said yes and the shrink replied, "Take the poison!"

great a whole series of lamo jokes

Jester: Sorry, but I was asked and did the best I could :-)

Herbie -
The jokes were great! Especially the one about the poison! ROFLMAO

petraclaudine Thanks :-)

Trackback URL: http://bearstrong.net/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/1568