Of late, I have been wondering where people got the idea that they deserve different things. There is a distinct entitlement mentality that has crept into the realm of accepted thought and I am curious where that thinking originated and where it leads.
Do people deserve to have a job? Is it a basic right? How would you create a system that ensures all able-bodied people had employment?
Do people deserve a home? Is it a basic right? If not, why not? If so, why?
Do people deserve free medical, paid for proactively, through taxation? Is it a basic right? If not, why not? If so, why?
Do people deserve a "living wage"? Is it a basic right? If not, why not? If so, why?
Do people deserve a free education, up to and including, a doctorate? Is it a basic right? If not, why not? If so, why?
Do people have a responsibility to help those around them? Is it a basic obligation? If not, why not? Is so, why?
All of these questions must be considered in a context relative to what the goals and values of a society are. Does a given society value community, altruism, assistance, education, or not so much? Does a society consider itself as a whole wealthy, impoverished, or somewhere in between? Does a society view everyone as one, or as independent people that have no obligation to each other at all, or somewhere in between? Do individuals in the society understand how much of their own situation was not of their own control (geographic location of birth, genetic health of their body, natural intelligence, able body, decent parents, etc.)
In the universal sense, or the broadest perspective I can imagine, I don't think people "deserve" anything. People just deserve what the group has agreed to provide. Personally, I'd rather have happy, healthy, and educated neighbors that feel they all share a stake in their community than the opposite.
-As far as entitlements are concerned, I think people are entitled to what they have been offered and agreed to, or developed on their own. Many of the social systems that are called "entitlements" are called so because there was once an agreement. The agreement went something along the lines of, "You pay money every month, and in return, you'll have some assistance with retirement and health care." Therefore, if they paid the money, they are entitled to the other end of the bargain. When these entitlements are cut, or eliminated, then I think people have a reason to be bothered. So what a lot of it comes down to is that the group should not make promises or enter agreements that they cannot keep.
-I think it's impractical to ensure people have a job. But I think it's in the country's best interest to have laws or regulations in place that help develop a strong job market, and provide worker rights and protections.
-I don't think a society can consider itself wealthy if it feels it doesn't have enough resources to ensure everyone has adequate shelter. If they feel too impoverished to ensure that the smaller percentage of people that cannot otherwise afford it, have health care, then I feel bad for those people and that society.
-I don't think a society can consider itself wealthy if it cannot provide substantial health care services to everyone. If they feel too impoverished to ensure that the smaller percentage of people that cannot otherwise afford it, have shelter, then I feel bad for those people and that society.
-We'd have to agree on what a "living wage" is, but if people are working for a wage that cannot afford the very basics for themselves, then why are they working?
-I think it's in society's best interest to ensure that education is affordable and easy to access. I'd suggest that money should be provided based on merit. I don't think everyone should have money to get a doctorate (not everyone is capable or desiring of a doctorate). I think money should be available for those that have good grades to go to college. And of those that go to college and are interested in a master's or doctorate program, I think money should be available for those that excel.
-I believe people only have an obligation to help those around them if they choose that obligation for themselves. If someone views their own self as someone who doesn't care about others, or doesn't want to help them, then who is to say that's wrong? Or if they view their own self as lacking resources, or as too impoverished, to help others, then perhaps the only feeling to feel for them is pity, since they are lacking. However, humans are social animals, and got this far not by brute strength or by surviving alone individually in the wilderness; they got this far by building effective communities.
-I think a society that has one, smaller group that has exponential wealth growth that is protected by the highly effective commercial and legal framework that the government helps support, and that is taking up a larger and larger percentage of the total wealth pie, and one, larger group that is having their wealth reduced over time, I think it takes merely someone who understands mathematics, rather than an ethicist, to see the instability.
I promise I won't be critical of what people may say here
as I am genuinely interested in why people believe what they do and what kind of economic system/political system others think would serve mankind better than capitalism.
Here's your chance. Convince me.
I propose a relatively free market tempered with significant social protection and community investment. The current systems that help support this level of wealth accumulation in the first place require significant legal (government) protection to function- property rights, shareholder rights, corporate laws, regulated recordkeeping, etc, plus the public money that went into things like developing the internet or the interstate highway system. I don't believe in providing protection just for those that have already benefited greatly from such things.
He asks questions without even a cursory examination of the what the philosophy of 'deserts' in a hierarchical society actually means.
