Reply #248: good point [View All]

[William Z. Foster]

I don't want to eliminate personal responsibility. Escape from personal responsibility for the wealthiest people - in the form of a government granted set of special privileges and immunities: corporate charters - results in activities that dominate every aspect of our lives and control our future.

I am saying that the "personal responsibility" argument is used against poor individuals most commonly, as an excuse for punishing and persecuting people, and virtually never used against the wealthier people.

Lack of taking personal responsibility is enshrined into law when it comes to wealthy people, their fortunes are built on government granted immunity from personal responsibility for anything they do.

I didn't say that personal responsibility is a threat, did I? You left the key part of that sentence out. I didn't say that "taking care of yourself" is a threat to the public, did I? You butchered that sentence as well, so that it says something quite different then what I said.

I explained regressive taxation several times, and yes I would say that the poorer you are, the less sales tax on things you should pay. Sales tax is another example of regressive taxation. I am opposed to regressive taxation. What is your stand on that issue?

When wealthy people do things - no matter what - there are no consequences of any import. No matter what working people do, it seems there are always consequences imposed upon us, and "personal responsibility" is often the excuse for imposing penalties and restrictions on us.

I hope I cleared up any confusion you have about this. I think it mostly depends upon who people identify with - the wealthy few, or the suffering many. Many people are not even aware that they do in fact identify with the wealthy few, since we have been trained our entire lives to do that.