Entitlement mentality

[All Along The Watchtower]

there's no moral excuse for a highly developed country not to guarantee a subsistence-plus lifestyle to all of its citizens/residents, if that's what you mean.

Sure there is, just ask Tom "Rich people in America are like the Jews in Nazi Germany" Perkins.

[ElectionsGuy]

No for most benefits (considered myself R for the sake of this question). But I'm not one to go around calling everybody a "taker" or a "welfare queen".

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

We should have a social welfare system, but it is not a right in the same manner as freedom of speech, religion, or the right to life.

having a right to life implies having a right to (at the very least) food, shelter, and healthcare.

It means you have a right to not be killed. Being unable to survive due to exposure to the elements, starvation, etc, is not being murdered by another individual, though I do agree with you that pro-lifers should be concerned with the fetus after birth, considering poverty is the number one reason for abortions.

[SUSAN CRUSHBONE]

having a right to life implies having a right to (at the very least) food, shelter, and healthcare.

It means you have a right to not be killed. Being unable to survive due to exposure to the elements, starvation, etc, is not being murdered by another individual

i see you've never heard of the concept of neglect. passive infringement on an individual's right to life is just as wrong as active infringement.

[Randy Bobandy]

Yup (poor).

[TDAS04]

Yes.  A society as prosperous as the US ought to provide enough to enable all to survive and live with a reasonable standard of comfort.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

having a right to life implies having a right to (at the very least) food, shelter, and healthcare.

It means you have a right to not be killed. Being unable to survive due to exposure to the elements, starvation, etc, is not being murdered by another individual

i see you've never heard of the concept of neglect. passive infringement on an individual's right to life is just as wrong as active infringement.

Neglect implies that one man is anothers keeper, which is simply not true. I see you have never heard of the capital letter.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

The only people who don't believe in entitlements on some level are Social Darwinists. Their number is negligible and they are stupid.

What, if anything, do you mean by these terms?

[SUSAN CRUSHBONE]

having a right to life implies having a right to (at the very least) food, shelter, and healthcare.

It means you have a right to not be killed. Being unable to survive due to exposure to the elements, starvation, etc, is not being murdered by another individual

i see you've never heard of the concept of neglect. passive infringement on an individual's right to life is just as wrong as active infringement.

Neglect implies that one man is anothers keeper, which is simply not true.

if the government has the ability to stop people from starving to death and actively chooses not to do so, that is indeed neglect.

what you're implying is that a government has no responsibility to care for its citisens, but i suppose that shouldn't be surprising coming from a libertarian.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

bqhatevwr.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

having a right to life implies having a right to (at the very least) food, shelter, and healthcare.

It means you have a right to not be killed. Being unable to survive due to exposure to the elements, starvation, etc, is not being murdered by another individual

i see you've never heard of the concept of neglect. passive infringement on an individual's right to life is just as wrong as active infringement.

Neglect implies that one man is anothers keeper, which is simply not true.

if the government has the ability to stop people from starving to death and actively chooses not to do so, that is indeed neglect.

what you're implying is that a government has no responsibility to care for its citisens, but i suppose that shouldn't be surprising coming from a libertarian.

I actually would support government run, Canadian style health care if it can be funded with a national sales tax, and that would not treat illegal immigrants accept in serious emergencies. I'm not talking about the government, however. I'm talking individual to individual. Does an individual have the moral duty to help one of his fellow human beings, with or without government force involved? I say no.

Elizabeth Warren had a point, to a limited degree. If you want to use the roads in America, you should pay taxes. Just like if I wanted a hamburger from Five Guys, I pay the price to get it. Taxes are more or less a business transaction. How the money collected by the state is spent is no more different than a corporation that expands as it gains more and more profit.

A “right to life” means to live, but neglect by forces outside the government is not murder in the slightest, as my initial post stated.

[SUSAN CRUSHBONE]

having a right to life implies having a right to (at the very least) food, shelter, and healthcare.

It means you have a right to not be killed. Being unable to survive due to exposure to the elements, starvation, etc, is not being murdered by another individual

i see you've never heard of the concept of neglect. passive infringement on an individual's right to life is just as wrong as active infringement.

Neglect implies that one man is anothers keeper, which is simply not true.

if the government has the ability to stop people from starving to death and actively chooses not to do so, that is indeed neglect.

what you're implying is that a government has no responsibility to care for its citisens, but i suppose that shouldn't be surprising coming from a libertarian.

I actually would support government run, Canadian style health care if it can be funded with a national sales tax, and that would not treat illegal immigrants accept in serious emergencies. I'm not talking about the government, however. I'm talking individual to individual. Does an individual have the moral duty to help one of his fellow human beings, with or without government force involved? I say no.

that's interesting, because i'm pretty sure everyone else is talking about the government.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

the old "government = business" nonsense again? ok.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

nobody is talking about "forces outside the government". and nobody is talking about "murder".

[politicallefty]

Yes (D), I do believe certain aspects of social welfare should be considered human rights, something along the lines of FDR's proposed Second Bill of Rights.

[Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck]

Yes.  A society as prosperous as the US ought to provide enough to enable all to survive and live with a reasonable standard of comfort.

^ pretty much this.  I thought we already took care of all of this when Locke and Hobbes gave us their musings on the state of nature and such?  What is politics and society other than a degree of entitlements?  Laws that protect you from murderers and thieves are an "entitlement".  So are roads.  So are laws that say a parent/guardian must take good care of their child.  And many other things taken for granted.  Politics is just the argument of where we should draw the line in the sand, no? 

We probably couldn't even live if not for some type of entitlement mentality. 

[angus]

no.

Our Founding Fathers did not write that people should be secure; they said that the people should be free.  The security aspect is a recent invention. 

Janis Joplin wrote that "Freedom's just another word for nothin' left to lose."  I think I agree with that.  I have ever since I heard that lyric when I was a toddler, and then a few years later I learned that Jefferson wrote that "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed..."

I agree with both of those statements.  You have the right to roll the dice.  You have the right to tell me to get bent.  You have the right not to be enslaved.  You have the right to hold your tongue.  You have the right to waggle your tongue.  You have the right to enjoy the fruits of your labor.  You have the right to an attorney.  You have the right to commune with whatever gods you think might hear your prayers.  You have the right to associate with whomever you please.  You have the right to bitch about the way you are treated.  Those are your rights.  You have no other rights.  You may have other privileges, but you have to earn those.  Rights are things that come for free.  Social benefits are hard-earned.  They are not free.  Social benefits come with social skills.  Get back to me after you have given some thought to raising a child.  A gifted child.  A spoiled child.  Get back to me after you have seriously considered social skills, social responsibilities, and social benefits.  Grow up a little, see the world, educate a human.  At that point, we might be able to have a serious conversation about social benefits, and whether humans might reasonably consider them a bequest of their creators.  At the moment, I am inclined to think that they should not be taken for granted.

[Indy Texas]

having a right to life implies having a right to (at the very least) food, shelter, and healthcare.

It means you have a right to not be killed. Being unable to survive due to exposure to the elements, starvation, etc, is not being murdered by another individual

i see you've never heard of the concept of neglect. passive infringement on an individual's right to life is just as wrong as active infringement.

Neglect implies that one man is anothers keeper, which is simply not true.

if the government has the ability to stop people from starving to death and actively chooses not to do so, that is indeed neglect.

what you're implying is that a government has no responsibility to care for its citisens, but i suppose that shouldn't be surprising coming from a libertarian.

I actually would support government run, Canadian style health care if it can be funded with a national sales tax, and that would not treat illegal immigrants accept in serious emergencies. I'm not talking about the government, however. I'm talking individual to individual. Does an individual have the moral duty to help one of his fellow human beings, with or without government force involved? I say no.

Elizabeth Warren had a point, to a limited degree. If you want to use the roads in America, you should pay taxes. Just like if I wanted a hamburger from Five Guys, I pay the price to get it. Taxes are more or less a business transaction. How the money collected by the state is spent is no more different than a corporation that expands as it gains more and more profit.

A “right to life” means to live, but neglect by forces outside the government is not murder in the slightest, as my initial post stated.

What you propose is totally illogical, since if it's funded by a sales tax, illegal immigrants would be funding it the same as legal immigrants and citizens would be.

[Mordecai]

Depends on what those benefits are, I'm not sure it's a moral right but I do think think that things like assisting the poor and elderly with food stamps, health insurance, housing, and job training is a service that should be provided, preferably by the government.

Edit: I only see it as a problem when people want those services but don't want to pay for it, like the Tea Party.