Entitlements?

[Mathematician]

Poverty as a societal illness is not the result of one person independently making bad choices. Those who are born to a world of poverty are not likely to overcome their place in the world. It's called the "culture of poverty" -- as you said, bad habits prosper, but we are talking about children who grow up in ghettos with no idea as to how to succeed. They only know how to live in a world where drugs and gangs are not only rampant but the main means of finding comfort. No decision is simply made in a vacuum. A lot of the young adults who do overcome the poverty barrier had parents who had realized too late what mistakes they made but sacrificed basically their entire lives to see that their kid didn't fall into this culture trap.

We are talking about parents who would probably be the business leaders of today if they had been born into a wealthier family.

Accepting that a huge chunk of society will live like that is simply unfathomable to me.

Are "hand-outs" the solution to eradicating the culture of poverty? No. Welfare and food stamps to a lesser extent alleviate individual problems families incur. To combat poverty requires 1.) strong, safe school systems, 2.) job opportunities, and 3.) community revitalization programs that don't simply drive up taxes/prices and lead to an exodus of poor families elsewhere.

 

[YmirGF]

I am glad that this thread is not quite dead. Again I am happy that many of you have taken the time to offer your thinking on these matters. That IS encouraging.

*Drops the "other" shoe*

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?

What do I think about this question?

Given that an entitlement is normally seen as something that is earned, it would not be unrealistic to say that results of something earned is a just dessert. In this case, however, one cannot "deserve" to have a job. Life isn't fair. People should be able to work towards a career of their choosing, even if they might have somewhat unrealistic goals. All too often many people mistake their job for their career and don't look at their current job(s) as a stepping stone to something better, that is more in line with what they really want to be doing.

Personally, I don't see how any system could guarantee that ones job path will not be difficult, or a the very least, a series of positions that may well be less than desirable. I do think that being able to get a job IS a basic right, but that right is dependent on ones qualifications. In other words, people have no right to a job they are not qualified for. That is unfair to other applicants who are already qualified or over-qualified. It is my experience that being over-qualified for a job is as bad as being under-qualified. In my view, being over-qualified should not be held against a prospective employee.

Likewise, I do not believe that people have the right to permanent employment such as tenure and binding union contracts. Such mechanisms introduce a "slow rot" into areas effectively removing natural checks and balances that ensure the best individuals occupy the available positions. Add to this the reality that from a statistical point of view most people currently hold a given job for no more than five years.

To recap:
People do not "deserve" jobs, but they should have the opportunity to find jobs, but be willing to take whatever comes along their path, seeing each new opportunity as a stepping stones to the area of employment they want to eventually be in.

People need to be taught how to make achievable goals, how to go after those goals and how to re-evaluate those goals when the initial conditions are achieved. Goal-setting should not be seen as a "one time" thing, but an ongoing process throughout ones life. Our high schools, if not elementary schools, would be a good place to start this instruction.

I don't know? Am I crazy? What do you think?

Note: And that's just the tip of the iceberg on that question alone.

 

[Random]

Jesus said "The poor are always with us." Many people among us are simply never going to manage their lives well, no matter how much is given to them. It's a sad truth.

The only thing that's sad is that this saying is twisted to justify the Capitalist class system and to absolve those with power of any responsibility to eliminate poverty even given the abundant means to do so.

If Jesus supposedly said that in the sense that you and others willfully take it to mean, then Jesus was WRONG. **** him. I'll punch him in the face if he tries to justify that in front of me.

But he didn't mean that; he meant simply that oppression, economic and otherwise, would always be a tool of the worldly to shape power structures that benefit the few over the many.

And that's what WILL change over the next few years. Or we're all going out the hard way.

 

[waitasec]

The only thing that's sad is that this saying is twisted to justify the Capitalist class system and to absolve those with power of any responsibility to eliminate poverty even given the abundant means to do so.

good point.

But he didn't mean that; he meant simply that oppression, economic and otherwise, would always be a tool of the worldly to shape power structures that benefit the few over the many.

yup...

And that's what WILL change over the next few years. Or we're all going out the hard way.

i am the 99%...

 

[Alceste]

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?


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.

It's not my place to determine what others do or don't "deserve". My values are primarily by pragmatism rather than an impulse to reward or punish others. Scandinavian society illustrates that an educated population with housing, food, water and job security, a living wage, a minimal debt burden and access to health care tends to be more productive, happier, and less prone to corruption, criminality and warfare. Research seems to affirm this impression.

From an altruistic point of view, my desire to reduce the net total human suffering in the world is not contingent on the character or merit of each individual because, as a fundamentally subjective being, I am not qualified to be an impartial judge of the merits of others. Therefore, if I saw two people starving, one with values I hate and one with values I admire, I would give them both a sandwich.

From a selfish point of view, I consider the kind of community to I want to live in. Do I want to hear stories of terrible, heart-rending, totally avoidable suffering all around me every day, such as I hear from sick Americans who can not afford health care for themselves or their families? Do I want have to step over a crowd of homeless mentally ill or drug addicted people whenever I leave the house? Do I want to have to lock my door or my car every time I go out and still worry about a break-in? Do I want to risk being mugged (or worse) every time I cross a public park at night? Do I want my children to be pressured to fight in a war? So, even out of pure selfishness, since observing the suffering and hardship of others unsettles me, it is most pragmatic for me to strive to reduce suffering and hardship. Good public policy is the key to attaining such an outcome - arbitrary, short-term, voluntary generosity is too volatile and unreliable to effect lasting change.

Capitalism is not about "serving mankind" - it is about accumulating wealth, and ONLY that. It's entirely the wrong ethos for the job of "serving mankind". It makes a handy economic engine, but there is more to life than accumulating private property. Capitalism is not equipped to tackle philosophical questions, or to conceive and implement rational, effective, broad-based solutions to social problems. Because capitalism is exclusively concerned with making money, a government that has abandoned philosophy and ethics in order to embrace capitalism will always go where the money is like a rat to a lump of cheese. Such a government will invariably serve the interests of those who control the most wealth at the expense of everybody else.

A government's job is to allocate tax revenue in a manner that best serves the public interest. That is a question for philosophers, not financiers. The best government is one that seeks to eliminate as much needless ignorance, illness, hardship and suffering from the population as possible while balancing the competing interests of different segments of the population.

When Western governments entered into an unholy (but lucrative, for a few) alliance with Big Business and began to work together in the 80s to advance the same public policy objectives - objectives that exclusively serve the interests of big business - the middle class began a long backslide into near-complete political and economic irrelevance. To reverse that trend will require a potentially messy divorce, but it is coming none too soon: due to declining oil production the global economy is about to begin a lengthy contraction with which capitalism will not be able to cope.

Thanks for asking.

 

[dust1n]

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.

What is this distinct entitlement mentality that is there?

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?

'Deserve' is an adjective English-speakers use help make sense of why people experience different circumstances. It's intrinsically non-existent.

'Rights' are abstract concepts, man-made, that serve a particular function for the entitlement of granted luxuries by a political institution. We collectively make our rights (though, obviously, others have more than sway than peers).

That being said, I'm just going to answer your questions under the assumption that most people would like to see a spread of prosperity, the near elimination of poverty, and improved standard living.

So, I don't know if anyone deserves a job. It could be a basic right, and I don't see why anyone wouldn't want it to be. If it was up to me, unemployment should be resolved be expansionary politics in education, infrastructure, aid, social programs, arts and sciences. It should be paid for with tax increases on the rich. It becomes a true incentive for businesses to hire, and be competitive in their hiring practices, because tax rates would be reflected by the 'job creation' business is so well-known for being good at rolleyes. In my mind, if the state allows ya to be prosperous via ya productivity, it should allow everyone else to do the same.

Do people deserve a home? Is it a basic right? If not, why not? If so, why?

People should be provided with a certain degree of shelter, though most should be stipulated to work (which is pretty easy when you are just making them).

^--- When industrial output is high, everyone tends to win. So my answer to 'why' is the same as above.

Do people deserve free medical, paid for proactively, through taxation? Is it a basic right? If not, why not? If so, why?

Ok, well that's ya, cause if ya payin' taxes in this country, you make it possible for the medical industry to exist and thrive in the first place.

Do people deserve a "living wage"? Is it a basic right? If not, why not? If so, why?

Jobs are pretty much pointless to society when they fail to provide 'livable wages.' It's a right here, to a certain degree, thanks to minimum wage. It's so because of FDR and others by the means of hundreds of thousands of workers!

Do people deserve a free education, up to and including, a doctorate? Is it a basic right? If not, why not? If so, why?

Certainly if our creator endowed us with the right to learn freely, I don't see why he wouldn't endow us with the right to education. :sad:

Do people have a responsibility to help those around them? Is it a basic obligation? If not, why not? Is so, why?

Probably not, and it's even understood by me that most people can't go very far because they themselves need help. But we certainly tax the rich regardless and make sure help makes it to people.

 

[Magic Man]

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?

Well, it's either have a job and support yourself, or don't have a job and rely on others for support. So, I'd say everyone should have a job. I don't have any specific ideas on how to get the maximum amount of people a job, though.

Do people deserve a home? Is it a basic right? If not, why not? If so, why?

They need shelter of some sort. For a reason, I guess I'd say because they're human beings.

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?

I'm not sure these are the right questions. I think the things people like to call "entitlements" are good for a society. I think when a society has these things, it creates a better environment for people to live in.

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 don't think there are many people who would say capitalism should not be factored in. Mostly people just want well-regulated capitalism, rather than the unregulated mess we have now that led to this recession, among other things. Countries like Sweden and Denmark have free markets and well-regulated capitalism, along with universal healthcare, public education through college, unemployment benefits, welfare, etc.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

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.

I've always found the concept of "deserving" rather meaningless, as most of what "happens" to people is a result of their decisions and actions. In my experience, people generally tend to have or get, what they "deserve."

I suppose I'm too pragmatic to entertain the idea that some type of fundamental fairness or rights exist. It's certainly a nice thought, but the world simply doesn't operate under this premise. Small pockets for temporary periods of time may seem to embody this, but there are often trade-offs, and I'd argue whether it's even a positive thing for human beings in the big picture.

 

[Valjean]

In my view, no -- these are not God-given, inalienable rights.

However: If a group of people get together and agree to form a "one for all, all for one" type mutual aid fraternity, then they're "entitled" to the benefits specified in the by-laws.

The government is supposed to be; was conceived to be, just such a fraternity. We are the government.

 

[Alceste]

I've always found the concept of "deserving" rather meaningless, as most of what "happens" to people is a result of their decisions and actions. In my experience, people generally tend to have or get, what they "deserve."

I suppose I'm too pragmatic to entertain the idea that some type of fundamental fairness or rights exist. It's certainly a nice thought, but the world simply doesn't operate under this premise. Small pockets for temporary periods of time may seem to embody this, but there are often trade-offs, and I'd argue whether it's even a positive thing for human beings in the big picture.

One word: Somalia.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

One word: Somalia.

One word arguments generally carry about as much weight as their length.

 

[Alceste]

One word arguments generally carry about as much weight as their length.

Would you say it is generally true that 29,000 Somalian children under the age of 5 have brought about their own starvation and death as a direct consequence of their individual choices?

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Would you say it is generally true that 29,000 Somalian children under the age of 5 have brought about their own starvation and death as a direct consequence of their individual choices?

Of course not. Would you say children starving in Africa is contextually related to the conversation that was occurring?

 

[Alceste]

Of course not. Would you say children starving in Africa is contextually related to the conversation that was occurring?

You said that in your experience it is generally true that one's economic circumstances are a direct consequence of one's personal choices. You didn't qualify.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

You said that in your experience it is generally true that one's economic circumstances are a direct consequence of one's personal choices. You didn't qualify.

Do I need to qualify the context of the conversation?

 

[Daemon Sophic]

Do people deserve money that they did not earn but have access to because of the accidental circumstances of their birth? Or an education paid for by their parents? Or the privileges of economy, opportunity that come with circumstances of nationality or ethnicity? Or certain freedom from the legal consequences of acts that comes with the fortuity of being born into circles of heightened privilege? Do people deserve to maintain separate property apart from the holistic system that makes the very concept of property feasible? Is it a fantasy for dim bulbs to imagine that social reality doles out its benefits on the basis of who deserves it?

It's selective self-delusion and nothing more.

My only beef with what is passing as "conservatism" these days is its blatant hypocrisy. It wants groupthink and social structures to support and protect certain values, but not others. Which is why I find it vile and intellectually dishonest. If you disdain group identities, grow a pair and be an anarchist. Otherwise, understand that the social world is not actually made of isolated individual beings that stand alone as moral agents, and it was idiotic to ever think that it was.

Humans are a social animal. They have survived for hundreds of thousands of years through cooperative behavior. Only absolute hermits have a right to complain they derive nothing from society and owe nothing to society.

doppleganger and Sunstone are correct.
Humans are successful only through intelligence and buolding upon each other's works. Any one of us: no matter how wonderfully successful: how hard working: etc.... is just a lump of carnivore food when we are put out on our own. The survival and progress of every single one of us is fully dependent upon the success and progression of all of us.
Now then.....with that undeniable fact in mind....YmirGF's questions....



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?It is hoped that they can all work. It is for the betterment of everyone that they all get a job. Deserve it?? Jobs are handed out as rewards? Are you suggesting that a few wealthy "job creators" exist, and that they will provide jobs to those of us peasants that they deem "worthy"? Short of a well run communist state (ha ha), I don't think humans will make a society with 100% employment any time soon.


Sorry...I'm pressed for time.....short answers from here on.

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?Shelter and medical care. Yes. without it people will die en masse in the streets. The gleaming neo-con world of survival of the fittest is littered with rotting corpses.

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?We have 10,000 years of human history showing how unregulated capitalism lives and dies. If all the money keeps going to the few, and the rest are left to live and die horrible deaths in squallor...then the 99.99% tend to form mobs and build guillotines. So if you are a 0.01 percenter, is a minimum wage a good idea? or do you watch Faux Noose?

As for education. it is the only possible saving grace for humanity. it is the only tool which can help us NOT repeat the bad old days of our history. It is the only way we can avoid becoming just another extinct species on this rock. It also does wonders for improving everyone's quality of life, and making ignorant cavemen into useful technical workers. So yes. Any society without free and great education is just asking to be the cheap labor pool of their neighboring countries.
Do people have a responsibility to help those around them? Is it a basic obligation? If not, why not? Is so, why?Now this is a good question.
Define "people". Do you mean the wealthy, who's fortunes are based upon the hard works of many others currently alive, and more who died in the past?
Do you mean tax payers? Do you mean the physically or mentally capable?
And who are the recipients?

 

[Alceste]

Do I need to qualify the context of the conversation?

Apparently so, since you claim that a person's economic circumstances are generally the direct result of their personal choices. If that general claim only applies under certain conditions, you need to clarify what those conditions are. It's your assertion, so it's your job to outline the parameters.

Would you say that - in general - for the majority of the 7 billion people on the planet, their economic circumstances are the direct result of their personal choices?

 

[Reverend Rick]

I should answer the Op's questions, but instead I'm going to ask even more questions.

Should only the rich be required to sacrifice for the common good or should it be every citizen's responsibility?

Should unproductive people be entitled to only receive things or should they be responsible as well?

I believe to those much is given much should be expected from them as well.

I don't believe in a society where much is expected and nothing is given in return, generation after generation. We have to break the cycle.

If all my basic needs where provided for, I would have no incentive to do anything and probably would not.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Apparently so, since you claim that a person's economic circumstances are generally the direct result of their personal choices. If that general claim only applies under certain conditions, you need to clarify what those conditions are. It's your assertion, so it's your job to outline the parameters.

Would you say that - in general - for the majority of the 7 billion people on the planet, their economic circumstances are the direct result of their personal choices?

I'd say if you feel the need to keep pushing the conversation in a direction I wasn't discussing, then I don't really have any interest in playing your transparent game.

 

[work in progress]

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?


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.

The basic divide is how you define freedom, then you can define what should or shouldn't be rights. If you're coming from a right wing premise that only negative freedoms (potential freedoms) are to be given any consideration, then the concept of positive rights (actions taken to ensure freedoms can be utilized) is regarded as an attack on freedoms....which is pretty much what all of the right wing clap trap about entitlements boils down to......I'm David Koch, and if a heating oil subsidy is given to the poor, that could slightly raise my taxes and infringe on my freedom to spend some of my billions on buying the biggest yacht at the yacht club!......well, that may not be the way the message is framed by the propagandists at the Heritage Club, Cato Institute or A.E.I., but that's what it boils down to. Any efforts to make society more equal, so that the poor can afford a decent place to live, and to feed their children, and to see a doctor before they go to an emergency room dying of cancer...are considered "interfering with the free market."

It ends up with a choice between what sort of society you want to live in:
one where equality is promoted because of the benefits to overall wellness and social cohesion, at the cost that those of us above the median income will have to contribute more....or
the gangster capitalist society we are rushing in to -- where the rich will increasingly maximize their wealth and cut themselves off from the public with their private mansions and bodyguards because of the increasing violence surrounding them, while the middle class continues to disappear and the growing underclass becomes increasingly unhealthy, dysfunctional and violent.

I know which world I want to live in, but I'm not sure how many other people get the picture!