Thrawn Rickle 17
Responsibility,
Accountability, and Culpability
© 1993 Williscroft |
|
|
An
underlying American principle is supremacy of the individual. Yet from the
beginning, this has been honored more in breach than in fact. Our
founding fathers seemed to say that control of everything rests with the
individual except where it is clearly impossible for the individual to
exercise such control. Then it reverts to government, but always to that government
closest to the problem—local and regional government first, then state, and
finally national, and then only for matters that go beyond the interests of individual
states. Diverging
interpretations of this concept clashed almost immediately. One group
insisted on reserving to the individual or to the lowest possible government
unit anything not specifically reserved by the constitution to a higher unit.
The opposition was less concerned with what was possible, focusing instead on
what was most reasonable or most advantageous. And therein lay the seeds of a
problem that still affects us today. Who
defines “reasonable” or “advantageous”? The Washington state legislature
recently enacted a motorcycle helmet law. Clearly, the majority believed that
it was “advantageous” for bikers to be helmeted. They invoked statistics
about lower injury rates for helmet wearers. They calculated higher costs to
society for supplying care to injured helmetless bikers without adequate insurance.
Counter arguments about an individual’s right to make responsible choices (or
not), about usurping rights not specifically granted to government, fell on
deaf ears. Arguments for Mandatory
seat belt laws are another example of the same kind of thinking. Government
assumes a responsibility not specifically granted to it, thereby removing
from the individual the responsibility for making another self-preserving
rational decision. Proponents
of these things miss the point when they argue that they are saving lives. Our
constitution is not about saving lives, it’s about freedom. Prove
that my driving 55 mph makes you safer on the highway, and you have my
attention. Prove that it makes me safer and base a speed limit on this, and
you’ve taken from me a choice I should be making. Hold me legally accountable
for the consequences of my reckless driving and enforce this—you’ll keep my
attention. Fine me when you catch me speeding, and I’ll buy a radar detector. We are
losing sight of a fundamental principle. In a society of free individuals, we
each must act in our own rational self interest. We each are fully
accountable for our actions. Society must enforce this fact, must ensure that
each individual never escapes the consequences of irresponsible behavior. It isn’t
a question of whether or not a result is beneficial. It is not even a
question of right or wrong. It is a question of responsibility, accountability,
and culpability. |
|