Misplaced blame

[Jayjay]

If I do X and doing X costs me money, and if doing X doesn't cost you money, then I'm not blamed for costing you money; however, if a law is passed such that my doing X ultimately costs you money, then I am blamed for ultimately costing you money when I do X.

However, it seems to me that it's misplaced blame since there are no instances of my doing X without the passed law that cost you money and only instances of you ultimately bearing the costs of my doing X with the passed law.

Therefore, even though you never bear any costs unless I do X, it is not my doing X that causes you to bear costs but rather the passed law.

I'll wager a guess that what you had in mind was X = "not having a health insurance and getting sick". If the law says you'll be compensated by tax payers, you'd blame the law, and not the person having the insurance.

Regardless of what you meant, in cases like this, you gotta ask yourself, why was the law in question passed? Usually laws have reasons behind them. Maybe activity X had an external cost that was borne by the entire society. Also, why would you do X if it costs you money? Only reason I can think of is that X is actually not always a losing proposition, but a risk. In this case, the law might be there to protect you from your own lack of judgment.

 

[fast]

How can you call the law a true neutral? I'm treating it as a third party.

We know nothing about it. We don't know if we would judge it moral or just or necessary, so we can't say the effect it has is the result of something good or bad, right or wrong, necessary or unnecessary. It is impossible to judge.

Typing on an iPad mini one letter at a time and losing everything makes for a long night.

The link between my action (and of actions like mine by others) and any costs to you and others is an indirect link. Even if the link between my actions and subsequent laws is direct, the pertinent direct link to any costs to you is through such laws. You refer to the laws as "it" --and rightfully so perhaps, but we shouldn't remove the human element and imbue neutrality upon it. We may say a saw saws, but people saw with saws, so say saws saw all we might, it's still the people that saw. Any cost to you is a direct result of man made laws despite any such indirect links to my actions ... And just like we should see the person responsible for the cut wood and not the saw, we should see the lawmakers responsible for imposed costs to you and not artifacts of man.

I suppose it would be easy for you to see no other parties involved but people who act and people who are ultimately financially effected by such actions when we invert lawmakers who create laws to things we refer to as "it", namely laws.

 

[Bronzeage]

We know nothing about it. We don't know if we would judge it moral or just or necessary, so we can't say the effect it has is the result of something good or bad, right or wrong, necessary or unnecessary. It is impossible to judge.

Typing on an iPad mini one letter at a time and losing everything makes for a long night.

The link between my action (and of actions like mine by others) and any costs to you and others is an indirect link. Even if the link between my actions and subsequent laws is direct, the pertinent direct link to any costs to you is through such laws. You refer to the laws as "it" --and rightfully so perhaps, but we shouldn't remove the human element and imbue neutrality upon it. We may say a saw saws, but people saw with saws, so say saws saw all we might, it's still the people that saw. Any cost to you is a direct result of man made laws despite any such indirect links to my actions ... And just like we should see the person responsible for the cut wood and not the saw, we should see the lawmakers responsible for imposed costs to you and not artifacts of man.

I suppose it would be easy for you to see no other parties involved but people who act and people who are ultimately financially effected by such actions when we invert lawmakers who create laws to things we refer to as "it", namely laws.

Is it legal to invert a lawmaker?

 

[fast]

Typing on an iPad mini one letter at a time and losing everything makes for a long night.

The link between my action (and of actions like mine by others) and any costs to you and others is an indirect link. Even if the link between my actions and subsequent laws is direct, the pertinent direct link to any costs to you is through such laws. You refer to the laws as "it" --and rightfully so perhaps, but we shouldn't remove the human element and imbue neutrality upon it. We may say a saw saws, but people saw with saws, so say saws saw all we might, it's still the people that saw. Any cost to you is a direct result of man made laws despite any such indirect links to my actions ... And just like we should see the person responsible for the cut wood and not the saw, we should see the lawmakers responsible for imposed costs to you and not artifacts of man.

I suppose it would be easy for you to see no other parties involved but people who act and people who are ultimately financially effected by such actions when we invert lawmakers who create laws to things we refer to as "it", namely laws.

Is it legal to invert a lawmaker?

 

[Jarhyn]

If we put someone in a room with a motion detector and if he leaves someone dies, whose fault is it when he leaves to get food and someone does? The person who put him in the room. The situation was arbitrary and contrived until it happened.

And if a person doesn't do X, person B shoots person C, it is ultimately person B that decides to shoot person C. Person B could decide to simply not do that.

The problem with the OP is that generally, doing X is penalized with cost Y, because X has a percent chance B of causing cost Z where Y = BZ. This is a way of saying gambling ought never pay high, and costs should be distributed among risk takers. Further, some costs are to the ultimate benefit of the group (like preventative health care and early treatment), so while it costs everyone a bit of money to give Tom a treatment for TB, lots of people are far happier for it.

Rarely, if ever, is there a situation where the law is the sole causitive agent of cost. I know a few situations off the top of my head, but I wouldn't touch them with a 12' pole.

 

[Arctish]

We know nothing about it. We don't know if we would judge it moral or just or necessary, so we can't say the effect it has is the result of something good or bad, right or wrong, necessary or unnecessary. It is impossible to judge.

Typing on an iPad mini one letter at a time and losing everything makes for a long night.

The link between my action (and of actions like mine by others) and any costs to you and others is an indirect link. Even if the link between my actions and subsequent laws is direct, the pertinent direct link to any costs to you is through such laws. You refer to the laws as "it" --and rightfully so perhaps, but we shouldn't remove the human element and imbue neutrality upon it. We may say a saw saws, but people saw with saws, so say saws saw all we might, it's still the people that saw. Any cost to you is a direct result of man made laws despite any such indirect links to my actions ... And just like we should see the person responsible for the cut wood and not the saw, we should see the lawmakers responsible for imposed costs to you and not artifacts of man.

So it's the lawmakers who make the laws. That doesn't change anything as far as your OP goes. We still don't know if the law those lawmakers created is moral or just or necessary. We don't know what motivated them to create it. We don't know if their creation will be lauded by generations to come as a model of wise, informed, and restrained but effective legislation or mocked as a textbook example of absurd, ignorant, counterproductive legislative overreach. All we know is that for some reason, lawmakers passed a law that shifted the costs associated with a certain action from one individual to another, or from the individual to the group.

I suppose it would be easy for you to see no other parties involved but people who act and people who are ultimately financially effected by such actions when we invert lawmakers who create laws to things we refer to as "it", namely laws.

Is it always immoral, unjust, and unnecessary for costs to be shifted from one person to another, or from the individual to the group? Even if you think the answer is yes, that doesn't absolve the person who chooses to engage in an activity that will incur a cost to others of his/her responsibility for making that choice.

 

[fast]

If a rescue worker who lives in Blue County damages expensive equipment trying to help someone who was told to evacuate but didn't, we might be inclined to see the fact that no damages would have occurred had he evacuated. We might also be inclined to be upset that property taxes will go to pay for damages. Should the grumpy old man who stubbornly stayed have to pay instead, but more importantly, why blame the man? Had he lived in Red County, this wouldn't have been an issue. It's the Blue County ordinances that read rescue workers MUST act regardless of potential destruction of equipment. Red County simply says his estate must cover the cost of retrieving his remains.

Grumpy man didn't impose any costs on the residents of Blue County, and it's not his fault the rescue worker was legally bound to act.

But wait, let me guess, he knew such costs would be spread amongst taxpayers and should of been mindful of that. Great, wonderful. That still doesn't defeat the point. His knowledge that a group of lawmakers would use his decision to cost others money doesn't make the imposition of those costs his.

 

[Arctish]

If a rescue worker who lives in Blue County damages expensive equipment trying to help someone who was told to evacuate but didn't, we might be inclined to see the fact that no damages would have occurred had he evacuated. We might also be inclined to be upset that property taxes will go to pay for damages. Should the grumpy old man who stubbornly stayed have to pay instead, but more importantly, why blame the man? Had he lived in Red County, this wouldn't have been an issue. It's the Blue County ordinances that read rescue workers MUST act regardless of potential destruction of equipment. Red County simply says his estate must cover the cost of retrieving his remains.

Grumpy man didn't impose any costs on the residents of Blue County, and it's not his fault the rescue worker was legally bound to act.

But wait, let me guess, he knew such costs would be spread amongst taxpayers and should of been mindful of that. Great, wonderful. That still doesn't defeat the point. His knowledge that a group of lawmakers would use his decision to cost others money doesn't make the imposition of those costs his.

Would use? The law was already in effect. That boat had sailed. He made his choice knowing it would cost others.

It looks like you are trying to argue that people aren't responsible for the consequences of the choices they make if they think those consequences shouldn't apply to them.

 

[fast]

If a rescue worker who lives in Blue County damages expensive equipment trying to help someone who was told to evacuate but didn't, we might be inclined to see the fact that no damages would have occurred had he evacuated. We might also be inclined to be upset that property taxes will go to pay for damages. Should the grumpy old man who stubbornly stayed have to pay instead, but more importantly, why blame the man? Had he lived in Red County, this wouldn't have been an issue. It's the Blue County ordinances that read rescue workers MUST act regardless of potential destruction of equipment. Red County simply says his estate must cover the cost of retrieving his remains.

Grumpy man didn't impose any costs on the residents of Blue County, and it's not his fault the rescue worker was legally bound to act.

But wait, let me guess, he knew such costs would be spread amongst taxpayers and should of been mindful of that. Great, wonderful. That still doesn't defeat the point. His knowledge that a group of lawmakers would use his decision to cost others money doesn't make the imposition of those costs his.

Would use? The law was already in effect. That boat had sailed. He made his choice knowing it would cost others.

It looks like you are trying to argue that people aren't responsible for the consequences of the choices they make if they think those consequences shouldn't apply to them.

You speak of a couple things. You speak of my knowledge, and you speak of applicability.

My knowledge is for the most part irrelevant to the issue at hand, for I hold the view that I should to some extent be responsible for the consequences of my choices when I already know my actions will negatively affect others; moreover, I also hold the view that I should to some extent be responsible for the consequences of my choices even in certain circumstances when I don't have any beforehand knowledge that my actions will negatively affect others. See, for the most, not only do I accept responsibility for the consequences of my actions when I know it'll have a negative effect on others, I also, for the most part, accept responsibility for the consequences of my actions when I don't know it'll have a negative effect on others. So, speaking of knowledge misses the point, especially in light of the fact I'm not willing to use my lack of knowledge as an excuse to avoid responsibility for the negative consequences my actions have on others--for the most part.

As to applicability, you're not exactly right on that either, but you might be close. It's not merely a matter of whether someone feels they should be excluded. If my actions have a direct and negative effect impact on others (knowingly or otherwise), then I should (for the most part) be held accountable for my actions whether I think I should be excluded.

If I were to self-diagnose the problem here, it has to do with my perceived difference between direct consequences and indirect consequences. That's not to say I hold the belief there are no indirect consequences of my actions to which I shouldn't be held accountable. It's just the idea that I'm the one responsible for your plight when it's the effect of another's decision. I'm cool with being accountable for my actions when they have a direct (I say, direct) effect on others, but I'm a bit apprehensive to be just as cool with being held accountable for some actions when the presence of negative consequences also hinge on the decision of others.

I used to joke that it's the cops fault I get speeding tickets. Yes, I wouldn't have gotten them had I not been speeding, but because I've sped so much without getting a ticket, there must be some other factor at play. Getting these tickets were costing me money and something needed to be done. I thought about slowing down, but because I've sped so much without getting a ticket, I needed to find out the true cause behind the problem. Come to find out that it wasn't merely my speeding behind all the tickets. It's only in cases where cops were doing their job did I get the damn things.