Oxfam: 85 richest people as wealthy as poorest half of the world

Re:Oxfam: 85 richest people as wealthy as poorest half of th... by fuckpig on Monday January 20, 2014 @08:26AM (#7089341)

The problem is that "social responsibility" has come to mean "subsidized egalitarianism."

Thus most people with any life-experience want nothing to do with it.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Oxfam: 85 richest people as wealthy as poorest half of th... by wavefunction on Monday January 20, 2014 @09:34AM (#7089676)

I find the opposite, that the most adult and mature folks I know are interested in fulfilling their social responsibility.

They may not be interested in the straw-man version you've proposed, but your definition is not the end-all, be-all of what "social responsibility" is.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Oxfam: 85 richest people as wealthy as poorest half of th... by nickff on Monday January 20, 2014 @04:36PM (#7091912)

We need a clear definition of "social responsibility", as many use the term to mean "collective responsibility", which really means 'foisting the costs on the politically powerless".

I see "social responsibility" as personal, which means that you are personally responsible for the society you live in; this is difficult when the government crowds out charities, and gives many people reason to free-ride.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Oxfam: 85 richest people as wealthy as poorest half of th... by fuckpig on Saturday January 25, 2014 @08:19AM (#7120693)

Great. I define social responsibility in Platonic terms:

Good to the good, bad to the bad.

[ Parent | on HN ]