Total Posts:15|Showing Posts:1-15
Jump to topic:

Human Entitlement

Varrack
Posts: 2,410
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/2/2015 4:34:06 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Some say that humans are entitled to various things: food, clothing, healthcare, government protection, benefits, etc.

Obviously some people never receive such things. Are people still "entitled" to things they were never meant to get? It may be better to say that ought to have them, but entitled to is iffy.

Are all people entitled to a first class life? Should basic necessities be all humans ought to possess, or are they entitled to extra things like healthcare, social security, etc.? Where is the line when it comes to human entitlement?
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/2/2015 10:26:40 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/2/2015 4:34:06 PM, Varrack wrote:
Some say that humans are entitled to various things: food, clothing, healthcare, government protection, benefits, etc.

Obviously some people never receive such things. Are people still "entitled" to things they were never meant to get? It may be better to say that ought to have them, but entitled to is iffy.

Are all people entitled to a first class life? Should basic necessities be all humans ought to possess, or are they entitled to extra things like healthcare, social security, etc.? Where is the line when it comes to human entitlement?

I think that people are entitled to what they otherwise would have been entitled to in the 'state of nature'. That is, enough resources to support themselves. Thomas Paine made this argument in his 'Agrarian Justice'. Healthcare, in my opinion, is the most ridiculous entitlement. It consists of a huge infrastructure, supported by vast amounts of labor and resources. Those who make use of it should pay for the use of that infrastructure and for the labor of those who support it. Pretty much the only healthcare that should be free are vaccinations, because they prevent so much lost money and lives down the road that it makes sense for them to be subsidized.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
Welfare-Worker
Posts: 1,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2015 9:11:31 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/2/2015 5:01:22 PM, Maikuru wrote:
What is a "first class life?"

Well, the answer is relative.

This gives little hint to the necessities or luxuries being enjoyed.
Is it gruel and a hollow tree stump, or caviar and gold plated facets.
If someone who is capable, and employed, can only afford gruel and a tree stump, those who do not work should have less.

Are those who perform no work, even if able, entitled to the same benefits as someone who toils?
Should those who are incapacitated be supported completely by the government (society), or should their family have the major responsibility?

I am not sure why the OP calls social security an 'extra thing'. It is an insurance plan, I paid into it for over 50 years. Some people pay into it for 40 years, and never receive a penny in benefit.
I have a life insurance policy that I spent thousands of dollars on, and will probably never receive a penny. Same with homeowner insurance.
When I was employed I had a life insurance policy that was part of my 'benefit package'.
I had no choice in the matter, my employer considered the cost of it, and my other benefits were reduced proportionally.

We have the situation in some countries that those who do not work even though able, enjoy a lifestyle equal to those who do work.
I equate that with a 'first class life'.
The ones who are working, to have no more than the ones who do not work, they do not have a 'first class life'.
As I said, it is relative.

We are entitled to what we earn.
Beyond that is charity.
I should not feel entitled to the charity of others.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,240
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2015 4:43:27 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/7/2015 9:11:31 AM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
At 4/2/2015 5:01:22 PM, Maikuru wrote:
I have a life insurance policy that I spent thousands of dollars on, and will probably never receive a penny.

If you do, let me know the secret!
Welfare-Worker
Posts: 1,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2015 4:51:11 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/7/2015 4:43:27 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 4/7/2015 9:11:31 AM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
At 4/2/2015 5:01:22 PM, Maikuru wrote:
I have a life insurance policy that I spent thousands of dollars on, and will probably never receive a penny.

If you do, let me know the secret!

It won't be cheap.
Genghis_Khan
Posts: 480
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2015 4:53:16 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/2/2015 4:34:06 PM, Varrack wrote:
Some say that humans are entitled to various things: food, clothing, healthcare, government protection, benefits, etc.

Obviously some people never receive such things. Are people still "entitled" to things they were never meant to get? It may be better to say that ought to have them, but entitled to is iffy.

Are all people entitled to a first class life? Should basic necessities be all humans ought to possess, or are they entitled to extra things like healthcare, social security, etc.? Where is the line when it comes to human entitlement?

Humans have a right to life, and are thus entitled to access to the basic resources needed to sustain life when they are unable to obtain those resources on their own. This includes food, clothing, and shelter. However, it does *not* include health insurance, marriage benefits, or a college education.
anything your heart desires
Varrack
Posts: 2,410
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2015 7:33:53 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/7/2015 4:53:16 PM, Genghis_Khan wrote:
At 4/2/2015 4:34:06 PM, Varrack wrote:
Some say that humans are entitled to various things: food, clothing, healthcare, government protection, benefits, etc.

Obviously some people never receive such things. Are people still "entitled" to things they were never meant to get? It may be better to say that ought to have them, but entitled to is iffy.

Are all people entitled to a first class life? Should basic necessities be all humans ought to possess, or are they entitled to extra things like healthcare, social security, etc.? Where is the line when it comes to human entitlement?

Humans have a right to life, and are thus entitled to access to the basic resources needed to sustain life when they are unable to obtain those resources on their own. This includes food, clothing, and shelter. However, it does *not* include health insurance, marriage benefits, or a college education.

Why not?
Varrack
Posts: 2,410
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2015 7:36:32 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/2/2015 10:26:40 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 4/2/2015 4:34:06 PM, Varrack wrote:
Some say that humans are entitled to various things: food, clothing, healthcare, government protection, benefits, etc.

Obviously some people never receive such things. Are people still "entitled" to things they were never meant to get? It may be better to say that ought to have them, but entitled to is iffy.

Are all people entitled to a first class life? Should basic necessities be all humans ought to possess, or are they entitled to extra things like healthcare, social security, etc.? Where is the line when it comes to human entitlement?

I think that people are entitled to what they otherwise would have been entitled to in the 'state of nature'. That is, enough resources to support themselves. Thomas Paine made this argument in his 'Agrarian Justice'. Healthcare, in my opinion, is the most ridiculous entitlement. It consists of a huge infrastructure, supported by vast amounts of labor and resources. Those who make use of it should pay for the use of that infrastructure and for the labor of those who support it. Pretty much the only healthcare that should be free are vaccinations, because they prevent so much lost money and lives down the road that it makes sense for them to be subsidized.

I think I agree. Rights are not things that force others to pay for, as it becomes an infringement on their rights.
Genghis_Khan
Posts: 480
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2015 8:52:38 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/7/2015 7:33:53 PM, Varrack wrote:
At 4/7/2015 4:53:16 PM, Genghis_Khan wrote:
At 4/2/2015 4:34:06 PM, Varrack wrote:
Some say that humans are entitled to various things: food, clothing, healthcare, government protection, benefits, etc.

Obviously some people never receive such things. Are people still "entitled" to things they were never meant to get? It may be better to say that ought to have them, but entitled to is iffy.

Are all people entitled to a first class life? Should basic necessities be all humans ought to possess, or are they entitled to extra things like healthcare, social security, etc.? Where is the line when it comes to human entitlement?

Humans have a right to life, and are thus entitled to access to the basic resources needed to sustain life when they are unable to obtain those resources on their own. This includes food, clothing, and shelter. However, it does *not* include health insurance, marriage benefits, or a college education.

Why not?

They aren't necessary to sustain life.
anything your heart desires
EndarkenedRationalist
Posts: 14,201
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2015 12:31:25 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
All people ought to be entitled to basic necessities - food and water, for example, as well as the faculties best designed to enhance life - namely, basic healthcare and primary education.
Sosoconfused
Posts: 237
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2015 4:01:03 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/2/2015 4:34:06 PM, Varrack wrote:
Some say that humans are entitled to various things: food, clothing, healthcare, government protection, benefits, etc.

Obviously some people never receive such things. Are people still "entitled" to things they were never meant to get? It may be better to say that ought to have them, but entitled to is iffy.

Are all people entitled to a first class life? Should basic necessities be all humans ought to possess, or are they entitled to extra things like healthcare, social security, etc.? Where is the line when it comes to human entitlement?

I think it's a matter of each society/community to decide how much they would like to help and ensure the security of their fellow man. I think there is a certain level of self interest that you can use to justify giving all of mankind a certain level of security. It's a means to an end in a sense.

It doesn't take a genius to figure out that a person who has food, water, shelter, etc... is less likely to resort to crime in order to obtain these things.

Knowing that the essentials of life are taken care of allows a person to take risks that they wouldn't ordinarily take; starting a business, pursuing a new idea, etc...

This provides a higher level of prosperity for the community as a whole and thus is a self serving measure in some sense. This gives the wealthy an incentive to invest in such programs.
Welfare-Worker
Posts: 1,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2015 5:37:23 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/8/2015 4:01:03 AM, Sosoconfused wrote:
At 4/2/2015 4:34:06 PM, Varrack wrote:
Some say that humans are entitled to various things: food, clothing, healthcare, government protection, benefits, etc.

Obviously some people never receive such things. Are people still "entitled" to things they were never meant to get? It may be better to say that ought to have them, but entitled to is iffy.

Are all people entitled to a first class life? Should basic necessities be all humans ought to possess, or are they entitled to extra things like healthcare, social security, etc.? Where is the line when it comes to human entitlement?

I think it's a matter of each society/community to decide how much they would like to help and ensure the security of their fellow man. I think there is a certain level of self interest that you can use to justify giving all of mankind a certain level of security. It's a means to an end in a sense.

Which begs the question - How large is a community?
A house? A block? A county mile? A state? A nation?

It doesn't take a genius to figure out that a person who has food, water, shelter, etc... is less likely to resort to crime in order to obtain these things.


Knowing that the essentials of life are taken care of allows a person to take risks that they wouldn't ordinarily take; starting a business, pursuing a new idea, etc...

It doesn't take a genius to figure out that if many person have all of their needs met they may as well sit on there rear and enjoy life, and figure out ways to get more free stuff.

This provides a higher level of prosperity for the community as a whole and thus is a self serving measure in some sense. This gives the wealthy an incentive to invest in such programs.

And when the wealthy are defined as someone that has more money than someone else, some will be taken from them to help the others. Thus bringing the wealthy down to their level.

Been there, seen that.

It would be great if everyone had plenty of food, water, housing, necessities.
The question is, who should provide it.
Sosoconfused
Posts: 237
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2015 6:12:06 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/8/2015 5:37:23 AM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
At 4/8/2015 4:01:03 AM, Sosoconfused wrote:
At 4/2/2015 4:34:06 PM, Varrack wrote:
Some say that humans are entitled to various things: food, clothing, healthcare, government protection, benefits, etc.

Obviously some people never receive such things. Are people still "entitled" to things they were never meant to get? It may be better to say that ought to have them, but entitled to is iffy.

Are all people entitled to a first class life? Should basic necessities be all humans ought to possess, or are they entitled to extra things like healthcare, social security, etc.? Where is the line when it comes to human entitlement?

I think it's a matter of each society/community to decide how much they would like to help and ensure the security of their fellow man. I think there is a certain level of self interest that you can use to justify giving all of mankind a certain level of security. It's a means to an end in a sense.

Which begs the question - How large is a community?
A house? A block? A county mile? A state? A nation?

Whatever we want to define it as. Guessing it would have to be at a national level at the very least.


It doesn't take a genius to figure out that a person who has food, water, shelter, etc... is less likely to resort to crime in order to obtain these things.


Knowing that the essentials of life are taken care of allows a person to take risks that they wouldn't ordinarily take; starting a business, pursuing a new idea, etc...

It doesn't take a genius to figure out that if many person have all of their needs met they may as well sit on there rear and enjoy life, and figure out ways to get more free stuff.

I think you're underestimating the power of greed and envy as a motivating force. Since when has the bare minimum ever been sufficient for the majority of a population? You are assuming that people are inherently lazy and unwilling to work. I submit to you that people are inherently greedy, envious, and wanting. I submit to you that allowing those motivators to drive people will make a better society than making survival the primary motivator.


This provides a higher level of prosperity for the community as a whole and thus is a self serving measure in some sense. This gives the wealthy an incentive to invest in such programs.

And when the wealthy are defined as someone that has more money than someone else, some will be taken from them to help the others. Thus bringing the wealthy down to their level.

You can do better than this.... Providing the bare minimum to the everyone doesn't mean providing everyone with equal access to goods, services, or wealth. You are either making a slippery slope argument or worse, a straw man argument. This isn't a framework to communism.


Been there, seen that.

of course....


It would be great if everyone had plenty of food, water, housing, necessities.
The question is, who should provide it.

The question as to who should provide these goods/services is difficult to answer because we don't even have a scale for implementation. Should this be a international standard or national standard? The scale drastically affects the governing bodies of such programs. It would have to be run through local governments (i.e. municipalities) in order to remain effective, but would probably have to be overseen by larger entities (i.e. federal governments or even something like the UN if it were to become an international standard).
Welfare-Worker
Posts: 1,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2015 11:12:15 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/8/2015 6:12:06 AM, Sosoconfused wrote:
At 4/8/2015 5:37:23 AM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
At 4/8/2015 4:01:03 AM, Sosoconfused wrote:
At 4/2/2015 4:34:06 PM, Varrack wrote:
Some say that humans are entitled to various things: food, clothing, healthcare, government protection, benefits, etc.

Obviously some people never receive such things. Are people still "entitled" to things they were never meant to get? It may be better to say that ought to have them, but entitled to is iffy.

Are all people entitled to a first class life? Should basic necessities be all humans ought to possess, or are they entitled to extra things like healthcare, social security, etc.? Where is the line when it comes to human entitlement?

I think it's a matter of each society/community to decide how much they would like to help and ensure the security of their fellow man. I think there is a certain level of self interest that you can use to justify giving all of mankind a certain level of security. It's a means to an end in a sense.

Which begs the question - How large is a community?
A house? A block? A county mile? A state? A nation?

Whatever we want to define it as. Guessing it would have to be at a national level at the very least.


It doesn't take a genius to figure out that a person who has food, water, shelter, etc... is less likely to resort to crime in order to obtain these things.


Knowing that the essentials of life are taken care of allows a person to take risks that they wouldn't ordinarily take; starting a business, pursuing a new idea, etc...

It doesn't take a genius to figure out that if many person have all of their needs met they may as well sit on there rear and enjoy life, and figure out ways to get more free stuff.

I think you're underestimating the power of greed and envy as a motivating force. Since when has the bare minimum ever been sufficient for the majority of a population? You are assuming that people are inherently lazy and unwilling to work. I submit to you that people are inherently greedy, envious, and wanting. I submit to you that allowing those motivators to drive people will make a better society than making survival the primary motivator.

Yes, we agree the majority will what 'stuff', fancy consumer goods.
The problem is, if - say 20% - don't care about fancy consumer stuff, and just want the free stuff, they can drain the other 80%.
It is not cheap keeping non-productives in food, housing, clothing, health care, etc.
I say 20% are lazy and shiftless, if they have the opportunity. No opportunity, and things change.



This provides a higher level of prosperity for the community as a whole and thus is a self serving measure in some sense. This gives the wealthy an incentive to invest in such programs.

And when the wealthy are defined as someone that has more money than someone else, some will be taken from them to help the others. Thus bringing the wealthy down to their level.

You can do better than this.... Providing the bare minimum to the everyone doesn't mean providing everyone with equal access to goods, services, or wealth. You are either making a slippery slope argument or worse, a straw man argument. This isn't a framework to communism.

IRS taxpaying citizens work full time and have little more to show for their effort than their neighbors who do no work.
Most people think of wealthy as $250k/year.
When $50k income folks are taxed to help pay for the needs of those who do not work, it seems to me they must be classified as 'wealthy', in some sense.
People who are taxed, because they choose to work, support people who choose to not work, and it turns out the workers have very little more than the non-working.


Been there, seen that.

of course....


It would be great if everyone had plenty of food, water, housing, necessities.
The question is, who should provide it.

The question as to who should provide these goods/services is difficult to answer because we don't even have a scale for implementation. Should this be a international standard or national standard? The scale drastically affects the governing bodies of such programs. It would have to be run through local governments (i.e. municipalities) in order to remain effective, but would probably have to be overseen by larger entities (i.e. federal governments or even something like the UN if it were to become an international standard).

In the U.S. the citizens are giving non-productive citizens, and others, the freedom to have all of their necessities provided.
This is done at the expense of those who work.

This system is not working well.