I'm a security guard controlling entrance to a facility. Someone comes to me, provides false credentials which I see as correct ones, and I allow him entrance to the facility. Am I to blame for allowing him to enter, or am I a victim of a scam? And how is that different from me, a voter, controlling who gets elected to lead?

Responsible or not
Debt from your government means every penny you have loses value.

Unless you actually been turning that useless money/credit(debt) cards into gold bars
It will affect you in ways you can't even imagine.

The first "money" to go is that on plastic cards/ in banks.
They might just out right take it.

Is it? Even if debt is not being paid down, tax revenue is spent to pay interest on the debt; a quick search results in "$223 billion, or 6 percent of the federal budget" as the amount of interest paid on the U.S. debt in 2015, and that amount is expected to rise substantially over the coming years. As more revenue is spent on interest, services must be cut or taxes raised... or more borrowed.

And we pay again in inflation; the value of our savings is stolen to finance more debt.

Debt is paid with tax dollars and inflated currency; that seems to me to indicate that debt is ultimately paid by the citizens.

Choose the form of the destructor? ;)

But seriously, that choice seems little different from the original choice; you've fleshed out Ricky's voting options, but you haven't justified that responsibility for the debt being foisted upon him (and his children, and their grandchildren) in the first place. Debt isn't some unavoidable occurrence; it's the result of deliberate human action. I suppose the gist of everything I've posted is more-or-less that such action seems an unjustifiable wrong to me (with the possible exception I noted in previous posts).

Doesn't "not having control over the monetary policy of their currency" pretty much mean that they couldn't steal wealth via inflation, so they directly confiscated it instead?

Whether by increased taxation, loss of value via inflation, or direct confiscation of savings... Ricky still suffers. :(

I got your position on natural disastrers / famine when you answered tiny. :)
FYI, I only rephrased his question as a "teaching moment" of sorts. I was in a didactic mood.

That said, let me clarify and comment.

By extraordinary debt I meant special funding bills outside of the usual yearly budget process.

On slavery, or "slavery". I follow you perfectly. It is of course rhetoric, but with substance. When I use that argument against taxation I usually weasel by saying akin to slavery, or similar to slavery. But fundamentally it is about human dignity, like slavery. Who is entitled to the fruits of one's labour? Oneself? Or Anyone else one did not choose?

PS: Indenture is the proper word for a type of servitude caused by "debt"? It's not necessarily immoral - the devil is in the details.

And that's the critical question in the tradeoffs between the individual and society: Freedom of association. Choosing whom to cooperate with. (whom to benefit, whom to help, whom to love) *
It's wonderful to see models of pay what you want work commercialy, as maybe someday we will realize the best ** way to fund anything in our communities is likewise voluntary instead of coercive.

But as you mention, this is just the principled guideline if one values liberty. In practice compromises might be needed, and sausages might be made.


* In determining the lines for where freedom of association should give way to other values I look closer at more individual scales. The rules for belonging in a family unit, the rules for belonging in a condo, the rules for belonging in a joint commercial enterprise - all these should help us determine the rules, obligations and benefits for belonging in nations, states, etc... it's not like we suddenly are angels or demons when dealing with sociopolitics and geopolitics as normally defined. We're only mere animals.

** Best because of ethics (tautologically ofc), not because of how much gets done. I have no fundamental societal issue (I'm not in armed revolt, I'm not emigrating, I'm not assassinating political leaders) with more or less welfare, more or less national defense, more or less whatever as long as its properly decided. This says nothing of my individual preferences which I reveal economically or express when I choose.
If the community that includes me undervalues or overpays for something and suffers due to same, they and I have no one else and nothing else to blame. It might be tragic, but it's no one elses' immoral fault. (We are always imagining malice because we always imagine it's personal - often it's impersonal)
Then, much as it is tempting to dissociate in a wash my hands off manner, I find that similar to an improperly justified no fault divorce or to a selfishly decided abortion. Yeah, I went there. The ethical action might be to instead accept the consequences - even if tragic - and cooperate to mitigate them. Of course in the zeitgeist of individual de-responsibilization we are in (mainly brought about by changes at the lowest level of social organization - which as I'm implying is the nuclear family level) pointing this out is heresy against the dominant dogma. But more funnily (I laugh so I won't cry), the ones shocked at it are the first to employ the rhetoric of greed and selfishness against freedom. (and to distract from the hugely evident statistical data) I'm not a libertine - they are. I'm just liberal and yet accept responsibility.

Yes, unless Ricky relocates to some other country because he didn't agree with the way the earlier governments borrowed money.

In a similar vein, Ricky probably benefit in many ways back when the government borrowed money, boosting the local economy. E.g. if Ricky owned an apartment or house, most probably its value increased. Or he enjoyed better services, or he got more clients for his business from the domestic market (as people had more disposable income overall), or maybe he or someone in his family even got a job in the public sector?

Your original question seemed to be "is Ricky morally responsible?", but now I feel that is the wrong question. The real question is whether or not Ricky is affected by the (good or bad) decisions made by his government? Yes. If his government was stupid enough to spend so much money that got the whole country to problems later on, he will feel the sting too one way or another, unless he escapes it to some other country.

The fact that there is at least a theoretical possibility to escape it all dilutes the idea of any kind of "moral responsibility". If there really was such a "responsibility", then surely it would follow you even if you moved abroad with your belongings, right?

I don't quite understand what you're trying to get at anyway. Are you saying that it is ok for citizens to benefit from good decisions made by their government, but not suffer from the bad decisions (without relocating)? How does that really work out then? Isn't it only fair that they are equally affected in both cases?

So whose job is it to oust such corrupt politicians, and/or make them suffer the consequences personally?

If I e.g. felt Syriza should have not been allowed to come in power in Greece, how could I have affected that, considering I don't have a right to vote in Greece? Isn't that the responsibility of those who do have the right to vote in Greece?


Let's reverse the discussion. Some country has a kickass government that does all the right things for the country and its citizens, and maybe the whole world. Can the citizens be commended for electing such a kickass government, or does all the glory (and benefits?) belong only to the members of that kickass government, the politicians? Should the citizens feel proud of themselves?

If I get you right, the citizens can't be commended for their kickass government. It is not their merit that such a good government exists, right? Hence the citizens don't necessarily have any rights to the fruits and wellbeing that the government produces with their kickass decisions?

It is rather irrelevant whether or not someone is "condemned" for it, as in hurting their feelings or something.

One could argue it should be part of a security service's responsibility (note: intelligence agency, not law enforcement) to keep track of corrupt politicians but unless they are directly involved in organized crime or terrorism, perhaps they don't care or can do much given that in the end, a head of such an organization likely answers directly to an elected official.

Yes. I agree. My question is, if I am in a position to vouch for someone's entry to a position where he can do harm, and I don't do a proper check myself, am I responsible for the actions of said individual or not (no matter if others also have the same power as me).

Of course. The question was whether the one that allowed the politician to get there also has responsibility or not.

Not that I disagree with your question, but now that you mention it, I see that security guard more as the politician. He was elected to his position by "the company". If he lets a criminal inside the company, he might be blamed for it depending on:

1. Was there even a theoretical chance he could have noticed the fake ID pass, if it was so well made or stolen or whatever?

2. Was he being sloppy, ie. he should have noticed the fake ID?

3. Did he let the criminal in deliberately (fake ID or not), making the guard a criminal too?

So based on these we could say whether the security guard (=politician) should be blamed and even sued for his actions.

Regardless of that, the fact that a criminal got in stings the whole company. So should the company be blamed for hiring that security guard in the first place, regarding the last two scenarios (sloppiness, or a criminal act)? If not, who then? Isn't it the job of the company (its owners, managers, everyone involved etc.) to come up with a screening process that criminals and sloppy persons are not allowed to security guard positions?

Maybe to people not working or owning a part of that company the whole discussion about "who to blame" is rather irrelevant, until someone suggests that people outside the company should take part of the blame and sting as well, like company's losses due to that happening should be compensated from tax money.

I didn't have as much time to post as I'd hoped tonight, unfortunately. I'd have liked to respond to more posts. But such is life... I'll be back in a few days.

We pretty much have that now in the U.S. The major parties only seem to oppose war and debt when they aren't in power. :(

I'll probably vote for these guys; I'm somewhat skeptical of their plan to balance the budget, but at least they seem to take the issue seriously, and they do push for a non-interventionist foreign policy. Not a dream ticket, but better than a war-mongering criminal (Hillary) or Trump.

I disagree almost entirely with most of the posts here. That's not particularly unusual, but here's my tuppence on the matter anyway:

The only person responsible for any debt is the person that lent the money. When they did that they factored in a risk that the debt wouldn't be repaid. In doing that they removed all moral responsibility that you had to repay it, because they had essentially charged for that responsibility instead. If they'd lent the money at cost, based on the goodness of their heart and their trust in you, then they are bringing morality into it. Those that lend to governments are not doing that, they are purely out for profit.

The only concern for the party that has been lent the money is whether or not they want to borrow money again on similar, or even better terms. The blame for money lost when countries default on debt should fall on the lenders that didn't correctly assess the risk. This is why I think the situation in Greece is so bad, because those lenders were given a way out, and those in the Eurozone have picked up the tab. Why that was done? You tell me.

The citizens as a collective are responsible for the government they have and indirectly responsible for anything their government does, whether they elected it or not. If citizens can't manage to get rid of their government then it's due to lack of cooperation between the citizens. Since humans are tribal animals who in this regard have not noticeably evolved since the stone ages and can - as history keeps proving - at best cooperate within a tribe of very limited size, any larger setups like states/empires etc are always going to fail. Naturally, small tribes can fail as well but the damage will be more contained. Some ideologies / forms of government will lead to a faster demise than others but past a certain size the demise of any collective is pre-programmed.

I think you are misreading the opinions so far expressed.

Maybe I'm wrong about that, but the OP certainly is indicating he is willing to let the government default on its debt implying the citizens should wash their hands of it with clean conscience. Myself for another example have stated that default or not, if in a democracy the whole community has some level of responsibility, but I did not make any explicit declarations about specific financial consequences.

That said, your tuppence strikes me as hugely irresponsible.

You are absolving the borrower of responsibility to repay because the lender factored in the risk of default. Really?
Even worse you imply because the lender is out for profit he deserves not having legal recourse. Even if being defrauded?
You say the lender charged the borrower, but when did he charge and what since you are basically saying the borrower can default at no consequence?

Future reputation consequences are secondary. What you are advocating is the implicit collapse of bank credit since no rational lender will do so under such cultural or legal expectations. You're saying loaning should be done as charity, assuming a loss. It's all akin to anti usury laws in medieval Europe, which set artificial limits to price of loans. Price controls don't work, even if it's price controls on the price of money advances. Most they do is collapse supply and lead to black markets.

Also, to get nearer to your presumed ethical concerns, this would be a hugely regressive policy as it privileges those with accumulated capital enormously, leaving everyone else absolutely required to save for long periods of time in order to invest in anything.

The fact the OP is talking about intra national debt - not international debt - whereas you are bringing up example of financial institutions lending to countries, makes me think you are considering the situation very narrowly. Please tell me you didn't really think this through. :(

Except the lenders did take responsibility by helping themselves to Greece land, resource, laws that benefits them.
The lenders already assess the risk and know they can win either way. So they are performing their responsibility nicely.