I think Lobonoik is right that individuals carry responsibility while society is the one who applies accountability should the individual not live up to those responsibilities.

That is the whole purpose of our legal system. Irresponsible people are forced, through the court system or misdemeanor fines, to do what society considers the responsible action or else, if direct reparation is impossible, the guilty party must serve time in jail.

With that said, I do not think society and government are synonomous. A lot of things society ought to do should not be forced by government. For example, it is charitable and righteous to assist the poor. But I have a big problem with government, using its threat of imprisonment if I don’t pay taxes, forcing me to be charitable. Yes, the end result is the same, the poor are provided for, but the means are extremely different. If society is synonomous with government and it is responsible for all then do we not have a legislative duty to care for the sick, ensure that no one’s grass is left unmowed for two weeks, or that everyone gets a new roof whenever their house needs one?

Society, meaning the relationship of neighbor to neighbor, is responsible for helping those who need help. Using government police power to force such help offends every notion of liberty as such reasoning clearly lends credence to government healthcare, government controlled retirement programs, government controlled prices, etc. etc.

Can you elaborate on this? I’d like to know why if you choose to do something society as a whole disagrees with, I can be accountable for it.

And does society as a whole include babies, the mentally ill, and all other non-rational actors?

Thus… society holding one to account.

“I also believe that people ought to be held responsible for them.”

If you don’t hold yourself ‘responsible for the condition of the world, how can anyone else hold you responsible’?

“I believe society as a whole cannot be accountable for much (i.e. the 9/11 hijackers are criminal)”

I believe society as a whole IS accountable for all!

Society and consensus? give me a break!

I believe individuals must be held to “account” for their actions. I also believe that people ought to be held responsible for them. I believe society as a whole cannot be accountable for much (i.e. the 9/11 hijackers are stupid)because a society only has a practical consensus for what occurs within it (not a direct consensus).

I believe ‘responibility’ resides with the individual and ‘accountability’ with society.

Just call me old-fashioned!

Their actions are indefensible but their guilt in that boys murder offends every notion of intent, personal responsibility, and fairness.

If you don’t like what they say, figure out the legal grounds to shut them up. But to suggest that what someone says creates enough guilt to charge them with the crimes of another is simply ridiculous. Should GM be charged with conspiracy to commit grand theft because they publish manuals on their ignition systems? Should Fox Television be sued because some terrorists blow up a commuter train as depicted in the series ‘24′?

It’s all prepostorous.

Mark is right. In any free society, you have to have accountability. The accountability resides with the individual in almost every circumstance (maybe choices between death and being forced to do something illegal are exceptions). NAMBLA is repellent in every way. But it didn’t MAKE anyone do anything.

I understand the desire to want to tar everyone with the same brush, so long as you’ve got the tar out. But you have to consider the legal consequences of doing so (i.e. you can’t rely on your government to make the distinction that you’re making here). Governments need very clearly defined laws, otherwise they abuse their power (perhaps that explains why Germany now has more laws on the books than all the nations in Europe combined — at least, that’s what they like to say).

With a defense of NAMBLA, it’s less about what NAMBLA does, and more about the fact that there may be a time when something that you actually think is valuable is attacked using the same ruling that was used against NAMBLA.

For example, say this site advocates the destruction of the YMCA, and someone takes that to mean doing something violent. You could be held accountable for it because of the prior ruling against NAMBLA. Not such a great precendent, if you ask me. NAMBLA may be disgusting, but in order to protect your free speech, theirs needs to be protected too (even when it’s absolutely contrary to everything that’s good).