Total Posts:58|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Schoolkids: No Money? No Lunch

DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2013 10:09:55 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
I found this article earlier today on CNN:

http://www.cnn.com...

Essentially, kids who didn't have the money for a lunch were not given one. And, apparently, everyone is up in arms about it.

I personally think that it's ridiculous that parents, who KNOW that it is THEIR responsibility to provide either money or food to their kid for lunch would call it "child abuse," or "child neglect," ON THE PART OF THE SCHOOL. The fact of the matter is, school lunch is NOT an entitlement program, it's a service that one pays for. And if the service determines that you ARE too impoverished to pay, then you get free lunch. If you CAN pay, but you DON'T, then how is that neglect or abuse?

I think what I want to say can be summed up in two comments on the article, which you can find below:

"I work in a Title 1 elementary school. more than 75% of our kids are on free lunch. We provide free breakfast in the classroom daily to all students and, if the child is in our free after school program, they also are given, free, an afternoon snack and dinner. We have assumed TOTAL responsibility for the nutritional needs of these kids. my guess is in the next few years, we'll provide all their clothes, (we already give them free school supplies), and eventually we will board them. Parents won't have to even take them home, which might actually be better for a lot of my students. Teachers have become parents...schools are now homes. What really bothers me is that these kids who get everything free always have pockets full of cash to spend on junk food at the corner store, and their mothers hold their cigarettes between beautifully manicured nails. Why not? The government is paying for all the expenses that the rest of us have to pay for ourselves. I love my students. I really do, but the system is not just teaching them academics, it's teaching them to expect handouts. The sense of entitlement by these families is disturbing. And yes, fraud in the free lunch program is rampant. Applications are never screened and no proof of income level (or lack thereof) is ever required."

"This is BS. The kids aren't starving. They and their parents were forgetful and irresponsible. The ones who qualify for free lunch get a free lunch. Why so free with pity that we should pity the able? Perhaps you'd feel better if legitimate free lunches should now be divided among those who can afford it as well. How PC is that?"
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
thett3
Posts: 14,348
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2013 10:24:48 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Wow that is just ridiculous. It's the parents responsibility to feed their kids, but I dont think "responsibility" is a thing valued in our society at all anymore
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
bossyburrito
Posts: 14,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2013 10:40:40 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
What the hell is wrong with people? Seriously. Child abuse? Ridiculous. Absolutely ridiculous.
#UnbanTheMadman

"Some will sell their dreams for small desires
Or lose the race to rats
Get caught in ticking traps
And start to dream of somewhere
To relax their restless flight
Somewhere out of a memory of lighted streets on quiet nights..."

~ Rush
bossyburrito
Posts: 14,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2013 10:44:54 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/6/2013 10:24:48 AM, thett3 wrote:
Wow that is just ridiculous. It's the parents responsibility to feed their kids, but I dont think "responsibility" is a thing valued in our society at all anymore

I would tend to disagree that it's their "responsibility", but that doesn't mean that it's anyone else's either.
#UnbanTheMadman

"Some will sell their dreams for small desires
Or lose the race to rats
Get caught in ticking traps
And start to dream of somewhere
To relax their restless flight
Somewhere out of a memory of lighted streets on quiet nights..."

~ Rush
drhead
Posts: 1,475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2013 10:45:30 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Over 5 cents of debt? I'm sorry, but in the real world, most people would find it easier to just let you purchase something anyway despite being a few cents short (just to avoid the hassle). In the real world, people wouldn't force you to discard something just because you're 5 cents short to purchase it.
Wall of Fail

"You reject religion... calling it a sickness, to what ends??? Are you a Homosexual??" - Dogknox
"For me, Evolution is a zombie theory. I mean imaginary cartoons and wishful thinking support it?" - Dragonfang
"There are no mental health benefits of atheism. It is devoid of rational thinking and mental protection." - Gabrian
bossyburrito
Posts: 14,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2013 10:47:24 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/6/2013 10:45:30 AM, drhead wrote:
Over 5 cents of debt? I'm sorry, but in the real world, most people would find it easier to just let you purchase something anyway despite being a few cents short (just to avoid the hassle). In the real world, people wouldn't force you to discard something just because you're 5 cents short to purchase it.

This is the real world.
#UnbanTheMadman

"Some will sell their dreams for small desires
Or lose the race to rats
Get caught in ticking traps
And start to dream of somewhere
To relax their restless flight
Somewhere out of a memory of lighted streets on quiet nights..."

~ Rush
THEVIRUS
Posts: 1,321
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2013 10:52:05 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
I think parents do have a responsibility for the most part. They had a kid, and it is theirs to take care of. That is like the 16 yr old who gets drunk at a party and 9 months later is giving her child to her mom so the baby will be taken care of. THAT ISNT HOW IT SHOULD WORK. When you have a kid you should know what you need to do for it. You should be able to pay to feed kids BEFORE YOU HAVE THEM. I understand, and make an exception for, people who had jobs fall out, or were fired when the economy tanked. However, if you are still above poverty, PAY FOR YOUR KIDS' LUNCH.
"So you want me to go to the judge with 'unit, corps, God, country'?" - A Few Good Men

"And the hits just keep on comin'." -A Few Good Men
bossyburrito
Posts: 14,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2013 10:59:35 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/6/2013 10:52:05 AM, THEVIRUS wrote:
I think parents do have a responsibility for the most part. They had a kid, and it is theirs to take care of. That is like the 16 yr old who gets drunk at a party and 9 months later is giving her child to her mom so the baby will be taken care of. THAT ISNT HOW IT SHOULD WORK. When you have a kid you should know what you need to do for it. You should be able to pay to feed kids BEFORE YOU HAVE THEM. I understand, and make an exception for, people who had jobs fall out, or were fired when the economy tanked. However, if you are still above poverty, PAY FOR YOUR KIDS' LUNCH.

Would you advocate forcefully taking money from the parents to feed the child if they refuse to?
#UnbanTheMadman

"Some will sell their dreams for small desires
Or lose the race to rats
Get caught in ticking traps
And start to dream of somewhere
To relax their restless flight
Somewhere out of a memory of lighted streets on quiet nights..."

~ Rush
THEVIRUS
Posts: 1,321
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2013 11:10:30 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/6/2013 10:59:35 AM, bossyburrito wrote:
At 4/6/2013 10:52:05 AM, THEVIRUS wrote:
I think parents do have a responsibility for the most part. They had a kid, and it is theirs to take care of. That is like the 16 yr old who gets drunk at a party and 9 months later is giving her child to her mom so the baby will be taken care of. THAT ISNT HOW IT SHOULD WORK. When you have a kid you should know what you need to do for it. You should be able to pay to feed kids BEFORE YOU HAVE THEM. I understand, and make an exception for, people who had jobs fall out, or were fired when the economy tanked. However, if you are still above poverty, PAY FOR YOUR KIDS' LUNCH.

Would you advocate forcefully taking money from the parents to feed the child if they refuse to?

Refuse as in they don't have the money or refuse as in they have the money but don't want to feed the child? If it's the latter I would advocate it in most instances. (if the family was walking along the poverty line and needed the money to put a roof over their kids' heads, no way should they be forced to feed their kids lunch and lose their house)
"So you want me to go to the judge with 'unit, corps, God, country'?" - A Few Good Men

"And the hits just keep on comin'." -A Few Good Men
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2013 11:17:25 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Ha my brother just got his lunch thrown away yesterday because he was overdrawn by a few bucks.
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2013 11:18:43 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Also public education is all around terrible, that includes how their food services. I'm sure private schools don't run into this problem.
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2013 4:03:40 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
In a way, I think it is child abuse/neglect/something.

As it stands, the children MUST be in school for 7-8 hours, and regardless of circumstances, they are not allowed to eat. That ought to be criminal. The article does mention something about a cheese sandwich being SOP, though.

However, on the flip side, it does teach a valuable lesson of money management. Plus, there is the chance that the child's account was negative due to abusing the account. For example, parents allocated enough money for the month, yet the child ate two meals every Pizza day, thus the account is negative.
My work here is, finally, done.
RyuuKyuzo
Posts: 3,074
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2013 4:19:15 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
People ought to be entitled to things regardless of if they can afford them or not.
If you're reading this, you're awesome and you should feel awesome.
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2013 4:21:23 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/6/2013 4:19:15 PM, RyuuKyuzo wrote:
People ought to be entitled to things regardless of if they can afford them or not.

Why? It seems an idea that makes a slave of their fellows.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
THEVIRUS
Posts: 1,321
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2013 4:28:43 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/6/2013 4:21:23 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 4/6/2013 4:19:15 PM, RyuuKyuzo wrote:
People ought to be entitled to things regardless of if they can afford them or not.

Why? It seems an idea that makes a slave of their fellows.

Exactly. People wont let you die of starvation purposefully. However this does not mean that they are subject to you.
"So you want me to go to the judge with 'unit, corps, God, country'?" - A Few Good Men

"And the hits just keep on comin'." -A Few Good Men
airmax1227
Posts: 13,241
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2013 4:42:36 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/6/2013 4:19:15 PM, RyuuKyuzo wrote:
People ought to be entitled to things regardless of if they can afford them or not.

What things in particular?

Is it just food, in the case of this thread, or should people be entitled to housing, healthcare, child care, internet access and entertainment as well?

I'm curious as to what, and how much, you think people should be entitled to and what limits, if any, you think there should be on what people are entitled to.
Debate.org Moderator
RyuuKyuzo
Posts: 3,074
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2013 4:51:35 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
As a socialist, I think it's in everyone's best interest to evenly redistribute all things; water, food, property, etc.
If you're reading this, you're awesome and you should feel awesome.
airmax1227
Posts: 13,241
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2013 4:53:39 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/6/2013 4:51:35 PM, RyuuKyuzo wrote:
As a socialist, I think it's in everyone's best interest to evenly redistribute all things; water, food, property, etc.

Fair enough, I respect that... that's a discussion for another day and another thread then.
Debate.org Moderator
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2013 4:58:38 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/6/2013 4:51:35 PM, RyuuKyuzo wrote:
As a socialist, I think it's in everyone's best interest to evenly redistribute all things; water, food, property, etc.

There is a difference between what is what in one's best interest and what one is entitled to. I'm not necessarily against socialism as a construct, but the idea that I "owe" someone something regardless of their own choices is abhorrent to me.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2013 5:00:07 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/6/2013 4:28:43 PM, THEVIRUS wrote:
At 4/6/2013 4:21:23 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 4/6/2013 4:19:15 PM, RyuuKyuzo wrote:
People ought to be entitled to things regardless of if they can afford them or not.

Why? It seems an idea that makes a slave of their fellows.

Exactly. People wont let you die of starvation purposefully. However this does not mean that they are subject to you.

Yes it does. It certainly doesn't mean they're wholly subject to you, of course, but it does mean that the one who does not work for their own benefit despite an ability to do so can demand their benefit from others.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
RyuuKyuzo
Posts: 3,074
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2013 5:24:34 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/6/2013 4:58:38 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 4/6/2013 4:51:35 PM, RyuuKyuzo wrote:
As a socialist, I think it's in everyone's best interest to evenly redistribute all things; water, food, property, etc.

There is a difference between what is what in one's best interest and what one is entitled to. I'm not necessarily against socialism as a construct, but the idea that I "owe" someone something regardless of their own choices is abhorrent to me.

It's a human rights issue. These are children we're talking about and at the end of the day, children ought not suffer for our ideological squabbles.
If you're reading this, you're awesome and you should feel awesome.
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2013 5:27:13 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/6/2013 5:24:34 PM, RyuuKyuzo wrote:
At 4/6/2013 4:58:38 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 4/6/2013 4:51:35 PM, RyuuKyuzo wrote:
As a socialist, I think it's in everyone's best interest to evenly redistribute all things; water, food, property, etc.

There is a difference between what is what in one's best interest and what one is entitled to. I'm not necessarily against socialism as a construct, but the idea that I "owe" someone something regardless of their own choices is abhorrent to me.

It's a human rights issue. These are children we're talking about and at the end of the day, children ought not suffer for our ideological squabbles.

Perhaps (though I woudl say they are more suffering for their parents' inability to take responsibility, but that's neither here nor there).

But you didn't say "children", you said "people". I'm not trying to be snarky; it seemed to be a generalization.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2013 5:28:20 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/6/2013 5:24:34 PM, RyuuKyuzo wrote:
At 4/6/2013 4:58:38 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 4/6/2013 4:51:35 PM, RyuuKyuzo wrote:
As a socialist, I think it's in everyone's best interest to evenly redistribute all things; water, food, property, etc.

There is a difference between what is what in one's best interest and what one is entitled to. I'm not necessarily against socialism as a construct, but the idea that I "owe" someone something regardless of their own choices is abhorrent to me.

It's a human rights issue. These are children we're talking about and at the end of the day, children ought not suffer for our ideological squabbles.

I see what you did there.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
RyuuKyuzo
Posts: 3,074
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2013 5:37:10 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/6/2013 5:27:13 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 4/6/2013 5:24:34 PM, RyuuKyuzo wrote:
At 4/6/2013 4:58:38 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 4/6/2013 4:51:35 PM, RyuuKyuzo wrote:
As a socialist, I think it's in everyone's best interest to evenly redistribute all things; water, food, property, etc.

There is a difference between what is what in one's best interest and what one is entitled to. I'm not necessarily against socialism as a construct, but the idea that I "owe" someone something regardless of their own choices is abhorrent to me.

It's a human rights issue. These are children we're talking about and at the end of the day, children ought not suffer for our ideological squabbles.

Perhaps (though I woudl say they are more suffering for their parents' inability to take responsibility, but that's neither here nor there).

But you didn't say "children", you said "people". I'm not trying to be snarky; it seemed to be a generalization.

I think the focus is wrong. We view families as individual units interacting within a society, but we need to keep in mind that we are one society. Our future is our collective responsibility and so I contend that we should view our society's children not in terms of whose burden they ought to be, but in terms of what we each have to offer our society's children. After all, the line you draw around whom you consider to be a part of your family is arbitrary. Obviously some people are more related than others, but ultimately these are all our children to the extent that each of them represents a part of our society's future.

We succeed as one, we fail as one.
If you're reading this, you're awesome and you should feel awesome.
RyuuKyuzo
Posts: 3,074
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2013 5:38:11 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/6/2013 5:28:20 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 4/6/2013 5:24:34 PM, RyuuKyuzo wrote:
At 4/6/2013 4:58:38 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 4/6/2013 4:51:35 PM, RyuuKyuzo wrote:
As a socialist, I think it's in everyone's best interest to evenly redistribute all things; water, food, property, etc.

There is a difference between what is what in one's best interest and what one is entitled to. I'm not necessarily against socialism as a construct, but the idea that I "owe" someone something regardless of their own choices is abhorrent to me.

It's a human rights issue. These are children we're talking about and at the end of the day, children ought not suffer for our ideological squabbles.

I see what you did there.

o rly
If you're reading this, you're awesome and you should feel awesome.
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2013 5:41:44 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/6/2013 5:37:10 PM, RyuuKyuzo wrote:


I think the focus is wrong. We view families as individual units interacting within a society, but we need to keep in mind that we are one society. Our future is our collective responsibility and so I contend that we should view our society's children not in terms of whose burden they ought to be, but in terms of what we each have to offer our society's children. After all, the line you draw around whom you consider to be a part of your family is arbitrary. Obviously some people are more related than others, but ultimately these are all our children to the extent that each of them represents a part of our society's future.

Again, perhaps I might disagree with some of these points, but your original comment was much more general. If you'll take a step back from that generality, my complaint changes, and this thread probably isn't the place for it. (While I agree with your broader point to a certain extent, I think there are other, less generally-agreed-upon consequences of thinking of children that way).
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
THEVIRUS
Posts: 1,321
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2013 5:47:09 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/6/2013 5:00:07 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 4/6/2013 4:28:43 PM, THEVIRUS wrote:
At 4/6/2013 4:21:23 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 4/6/2013 4:19:15 PM, RyuuKyuzo wrote:
People ought to be entitled to things regardless of if they can afford them or not.

Why? It seems an idea that makes a slave of their fellows.

Exactly. People wont let you die of starvation purposefully. However this does not mean that they are subject to you.

Yes it does. It certainly doesn't mean they're wholly subject to you, of course, but it does mean that the one who does not work for their own benefit despite an ability to do so can demand their benefit from others.

Sorry, I was agreeing with you(even though it didn't seem like it)
"So you want me to go to the judge with 'unit, corps, God, country'?" - A Few Good Men

"And the hits just keep on comin'." -A Few Good Men
RyuuKyuzo
Posts: 3,074
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2013 5:57:50 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/6/2013 5:41:44 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 4/6/2013 5:37:10 PM, RyuuKyuzo wrote:


I think the focus is wrong. We view families as individual units interacting within a society, but we need to keep in mind that we are one society. Our future is our collective responsibility and so I contend that we should view our society's children not in terms of whose burden they ought to be, but in terms of what we each have to offer our society's children. After all, the line you draw around whom you consider to be a part of your family is arbitrary. Obviously some people are more related than others, but ultimately these are all our children to the extent that each of them represents a part of our society's future.


Again, perhaps I might disagree with some of these points, but your original comment was much more general. If you'll take a step back from that generality, my complaint changes, and this thread probably isn't the place for it. (While I agree with your broader point to a certain extent, I think there are other, less generally-agreed-upon consequences of thinking of children that way).

The same logic applies to adults too. Just as children are our collective future, adults are our collective present. Due to genetic variation and the different circumstances each person lives their lives in, people will end up unequal in certain ways regardless of what we do, but the differences between us needn't be the focus. Those at the top of our society (both in terms of social status and ability) should use what they have to help lift up those beneath them in social class and ability.
We should focus on closing the gaps between us and strengthening our social solidarity rather than promoting ever-widening gaps between social strata in the hopes that out-competing one another will latently achieve the "good life". Perhaps this can help us achieve the mean good-life, but the cost is too high, and we needn't settle for it.

The world is a hard enough place as it is. At the very least, people ought ought be secure in their needs, and to do this we need to view these things (the ones I mentioned in my earlier post to airmax) as human rights to be dolled out evenly.
If you're reading this, you're awesome and you should feel awesome.
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2013 7:03:44 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/6/2013 5:57:50 PM, RyuuKyuzo wrote:

: The same logic applies to adults too.

No, it doesn't. Adults are rational actors. To pretend otherwise is to infantilize them.

Just as children are our collective future, adults are our collective present. Due to genetic variation and the different circumstances each person lives their lives in, people will end up unequal in certain ways regardless of what we do, but the differences between us needn't be the focus.

Not at all the point.

Those at the top of our society (both in terms of social status and ability) should use what they have to help lift up those beneath them in social class and ability.

Perhaps they should. But we're discussing what people are entitled to.

The world is a hard enough place as it is. At the very least, people ought ought be secure in their needs,

Even if they're lazy and it's entirely their fault. Again: it's a form of slavery. It is one thing to say "this would, from a utilitarian standpoint, be the best thing to do". That I could agree with. But there is a difference between that and "I am entitled to your food."
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
RyuuKyuzo
Posts: 3,074
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2013 7:20:44 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/6/2013 7:03:44 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 4/6/2013 5:57:50 PM, RyuuKyuzo wrote:

: The same logic applies to adults too.


No, it doesn't. Adults are rational actors. To pretend otherwise is to infantilize them.


Just as children are our collective future, adults are our collective present. Due to genetic variation and the different circumstances each person lives their lives in, people will end up unequal in certain ways regardless of what we do, but the differences between us needn't be the focus.

Not at all the point.

Those at the top of our society (both in terms of social status and ability) should use what they have to help lift up those beneath them in social class and ability.

Perhaps they should. But we're discussing what people are entitled to.


The world is a hard enough place as it is. At the very least, people ought ought be secure in their needs,

Even if they're lazy and it's entirely their fault. Again: it's a form of slavery. It is one thing to say "this would, from a utilitarian standpoint, be the best thing to do". That I could agree with. But there is a difference between that and "I am entitled to your food."

Human beings are not lazy by nature. We, like all mammals, take a great amount of joy in doing and accomplishing things. The "lazy" people in society are the pessimists who feel that there's no point in even trying. Their drive has been crushed down into hopelessness and they feel like there's no real possible social mobility. The question then is how the became that way.
They became that way because they feel they live in a world of perceived enemies who either have more going for them, or started off way ahead of them. << This is the kind of society we have now. we look at other people like problems to be solved rather than a part of us. We need a radically new approach to our collective identity, and to do that we need to come together and agree that, at the very least, these basic needs are entitlements that people ought to have by virtue of their existence. After all, they didn't choose to be born, we (the last generation) birthed them out of our own interests, and if we can't at least supply them with these things then we're simply cashing cheques the expense of our own future.

If you approach society from the perspective that "the more you do, the more you get", then it seems silly so suggest that people are entitled to things, and I can see the rationale here, but people aren't problems to be solved, they aren't your enemies, they're simply smaller components to a bigger picture. In pre-behavioral modernity tribal socialist societies, each individual human had no real concept of themselves as an individual. They functioned as part of the whole. Ants also have no real sense of individuality, and yet their operate flawlessly. Could you imagine how quickly ant colonies would destroy themselves if ants viewed each other the way we view other people?
If you're reading this, you're awesome and you should feel awesome.