<<<WARNING: PHILOSOPHY BELOW. PROCEED AT YOUR OWN RISK>>>
the following was written in a friendly spirit. I'm a student of philosophy, which means that I enjoy discussions of this nature.
For a philosophy student such as myself, "responsibility" is a very flimsy term.
How much can/should a person be responsible for?
Let's start with the can: Is it realistic for a person to callibrate the speedometer in her/his vehicle, in order to guarantee accuracy within, say, 2.5% throughout the legal speed range (0-65 mph)? If manufacturers can't do it, how could we? I'm not talking about the alleged 10% margin on bikes, cars are up or down a few mph as well. A car magazine in Brazil even calculates the % error, up or down, at 40, 60, and 100 kph for their test cars; some cars are down at 40, up at 100.
Now, say we do callibrate the speedometer. Are we responsible for recallibration every, oh, 500 miles? Tire wear affects speedometer accuracy, after all. Could a person be expected to keep up with this while leading the rest of her/his life? Could one alter one's entire life in order to follow the letter of the law, in its minutest details?
But, without having really answered the can, let's look at the should:
Now, if my bike is 2.5% off in it's speedo, that means a fine for me. I'd be going 41mph at a 40 zone. Should I get a ticket for it? According to the local laws, 1mph over is a ticket. Should I be responsible for it?
I realize that DucatiFlyBoy's case is much simpler than this; you need tags to drive, and he had no tags. But the basic principle still applies: The letter of the law states that he should do something, but particular details of his life precluded this something being done. He was a victim of a crime, which in turn caused him to violate the law himself. He has been wronged by the state, but cannot prove it. Jean-François Lyotard defines this as victimhood.
The gravity of the wrong suffered by DFB might be arguable, but to argue it in an idiom which cannot properly account for it would victimize him further. Thus, in order to properly talk about the wrong which the letter of the law caused DFB, one cannot use the legislation as the idiom of the discussion. Thus, in order to use a term like responsibility in this discussion, it could not be defined as it is in legislation. The term would need to be altered, made flimsyer, and inevitably (but far from needlessly) ambiguous. A new idiom would need to be found, which could do justice to both parties in the discussion (DFB and the Legislation). But a problem arises: once this idiom is found, how can one know that it indeed does justice to both parties? Would mutual agreement suffice? But that assumes proper understanding, and the justification becomes circular.
Lyotard explains this concept better in his book, The Differend. I don't believe I did him justice, but then it is a 200 page concept...
The basic point here is this: to require us to be absolutely responsible ignores crucial aspects of our lifes, and by ignoring these aspects, it does us a wrong. By not allowing for a proper debate, and/or by forcing us to use an idiom which cannot account for this wrong, it would victimize us.
André