Talk:Statue of Responsibility/Archive 1
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Statue of Responsibility. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 |
Is this notable?
Is this idea really notable, or merely laughable? I suggest deletion or transfer to a paragraph in the article on the Statue of Liberty. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.225.21.78 (talk) 02:00, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
- I'm not sure if it's notable, but there is already a paragraph on this in the Statue of Liberty article, and there isn't any need for form information on this proposed statue there. 69.132.221.35 (talk) 16:50, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
- There's no longer a paragraph in the Statue of Liberty article, at least that I can find with a Control+F search and a quick read. And there is a real, growing, Statue of Responsibility Foundation. It's certainly still in the beginning stages, but it does have potential if they get the basic funding to start a media campaign. Statesman 88 (talk) 18:38, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
- Looks like a statist/liberal undermining of the true meaning of liberty to me. And a ridiculous one at that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.115.82.40 (talk) 16:23, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
- I disagree. If anything, it's the opposite of statist; the whole point is that people are responsible for how they use their freedom, that we have duties and obligations as part of our liberty. Big government is usually created because people don't want to be responsible, so they create distant government programs to do the work for them. A responsible people don't need a big government to babysit them. Statesman 88 (talk) 18:38, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
- This is just a philosophical idea that some famous man once had. It has not gained popular support yet and it is very far away from being as symbolic as the Statue of Liberty. Let's wait until it becomes something real or Wikipedia will bloat a thousand times just by creating articles about all the fancy ideas that famous people once had. It has no relevance by itself. A line or two in the Viktor Frankl article is more than enough. Aldo L (talk) 05:52, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
- I disagree. If anything, it's the opposite of statist; the whole point is that people are responsible for how they use their freedom, that we have duties and obligations as part of our liberty. Big government is usually created because people don't want to be responsible, so they create distant government programs to do the work for them. A responsible people don't need a big government to babysit them. Statesman 88 (talk) 18:38, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
- Looks like a statist/liberal undermining of the true meaning of liberty to me. And a ridiculous one at that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.115.82.40 (talk) 16:23, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
- What could be more absurd than buiding such a statue in such irresponsible statist locations as San Diego, Los Angeles or Seattle? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.213.238.58 (talk) 08:15, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Why be more complicated? Statue of Providence or Statue of Responsibility... I would suggest that Statue of Justice be built instead... I pledge alegience to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation, under god, indivisible with LIBERTY and JUSTICE for all. It would seem lady liberty should be complimented with lady Justice. Lady justice does represent our responsiblity to eachother and our country. So Liberty on the east and Justice on the west for all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.164.216.75 (talk) 09:34, 14 January 2013 (UTC)