RateItAll: The Opinion Network

I think you need context to identify this as a conservative principle. The conflict between conservatives and liberals on this is that conservatives view the government as a referee, to assure the fair application of a set of laws (which would, hopefully, be limited in scope) to conflicts that might arise, but not having a stake in WHO is successful (rich) and WHO is unsuccessful (poor). Therefore, YOU are responsible (accountable) for your success in any given arena. Liberals accord the government responsibility to ASSURE that everyone's success is about equal. Nobody gets too rich. The poor must be assisted and to do that, we'll take money from the rich and give it to the poor, until they figure out how to get their own. The problem comes in when you realize that the poor, now in possession of a little of the rich people's money, don't have incentive to figure out how to get more, the government will keep taking money from the rich and give it to them. Over time, one would assume that such a system would eliminate poverty. We now know that it doesn't, no matter how much you take from the rich (and middle class) and how much you "give" to the poor, there will always be poor people, even in this land of opportunity. What was once a safety net, becomes the breadwinner. Liberals appear to be OK with that outcome, and ensure their re-election by assuring the "poor" and like-minded sympathetic voters that they will continue to expand the social spending programs. Conservatives see that as a failure of the government, caused by an overreaching of its authority.

Inherent in this item is the essence of conservative thought: being accountable assumes that the individual is not a solipsistic human God unto himself. That the individual beyond engaging in actions that do not deny others rights to their action i.e. desires, is actually intrinsically something- something good and virtuous-as part of a natural process. At the epicenter of the ideological battle between current mainstream liberalism and conservatism is a polarity in visions that view human freedom upon diametrically opposed principles. Liberals (with their knowledge or not) view the creation of freedom through the rational self and deduce from that view rights to behaviors that protect individual autonomy from majority (or government) encroachment. Therefore, so long as I am not hurting anyone I should be free to act under my own volition- my own conscience- in a hypothetically valueless system. The only value is placed in our capacity to choose above all else, leaving the system ambivelent between choices. This dogma is explicit particularly when you hear liberals say things like who are you to judge me!...I am accountable to no one but myself! The conservative position is quite different. Though much of conservative ideology is tacitly accepted the concepts themselves are passed on through cultural traditions and natural institutions. Freedom is created and maintained through a continual dialog within those cultural traditions and maintained through elections. Our positive laws reflect a knowledge of human nature that are deducible from what is considered metaphysical anthropology- what is the meaning of each thing in its rightful place- what is its virtue (or vice)? Through a vociferous dialog (and elections) we as a society can formulate laws that promote virtues for the common good. These virtues assmue that man is not a God unto himself but part of a process with natural obligations to himself, family and community. That we as individuals are therefore accountable to the process- to ourselves, our children our government and community.

Both heykate and DickDirk make interesting reading on this. Both are pretty passionate, but I side with heykate. My own oversimplified take on this is that generally speaking conservatives don't feel that anyone owes them a living, but that liberals tend to want to eat out of the public trough. Sure, there are exceptions on both sides. DD is right when he says that it's not necessarily the hardest working that make it to the top, and that sure is true, but it doesn't negate the fact that you should work to earn your keep in the first place. Take a look at how Kerry made his money - he married into it (twice) - hardly my definition of hard work. Kerry may be an aberration. Plenty of liberals word as hard, or harder, than the next guy, but philosophically, it's the liberal mentality that promotes the idea of income redistribution. I don't ask anyone for anything, but I don't want anyone to freeload off of my sweat, either. Charity is another issue - I support that, but government handouts to people are pretty much anathema to me. As a totally irrlevant aside, I'm not sure what DickDirk was referring to about Ford providing engines for German tanks in WW II - I'm pretty sure that Maybach was the prime, if not sole, producer of German tank engines in WW II, and I'd never heard of any connection they may have had with Ford, but maybe DD has led me to something I was unaware of previously. In fairness, however, to DD's point, GM's German subsidiary, Opel, sure supplied an awful lot of trucks )the Opel Blitz) for the Wehrmacht.

That's right. There are no visions of pure equality in the conservative philosphy, you get what you earn in life. Where there's a will there's a way and we don't put up with sob stories. It sounds kind of apathetic, I know, but people should bu judged and rewarded according to their actions, not by some governmental definition of equality. We believe that your actions are your responsibility. That is why the current Republican party is against abortion, because your action is your responsibility and you don't get to pawn it off by killing your unborn child.

I agree with Magellan,Personal Accountability is right at the core of Conservatives.This means if you put a hot cup of coffee between your legs and you burn the crap out of yourself,it is not McDonalds fault.It also means that when a couple of sadistic teenagers go into a high school and shoot the place up,the parents should not sue Remington since it was their brand of rifles used in the killings.It means that when a guy is drunk and driving 80 miles an hour down a backroad and flips his SUV and kills everyone,Ford should not be sued!Update:Come on Jar-Jar,it is liberal lawyers that take these garbage cases and liberal judges that rule in their favor.

Wrong! Liberals are the ones who are more accountable for their actions than conservatives. You have all these conservative right-wingers who questioned Bill Clinton's sex life and many who did had sexual liasons of their own (Newt Gingrich, Bob Barr, Bob Packwood) ... Mr. Political! Thanks for the message about my Sexual Chocolate weblist by the way! You're very kind!

The conservative definition of personal accountability has always remained the same and until recently has never reduced the quality of life, or freedoms for that matter, of Americans. It is only because many people have decided that a job isn't giving them enough of an income that they decide to clog the justice system with asinine law suits that personal accountability begins to make get-rich-quick schemes more difficult. There is no moral high horse here...just common sense.

. . .which means you should lose your job if you lie to Americans about a war that kills thousands of innocent civilians, right? Oh, that's right - the war is over- mission accomplished. Conservatives only care about accountability when it fits their morality. . .which is as flexible as any liberal I've ever met.

Personal accountability is pretty core to my definition of conservatism. Anyone can make it through hard work. If you screw up, no excuses - there's nobody to blame but yourself. It's sort of an extension of the thinking that says hand-outs are bad, because they make people lazy.

I think this is a lost issue but one that defines my stance as a conservative whacko. All are accountable. Remember this.