Quote:
Originally posted by smoothmoniker
There are two critical differences between voluntary social obligation, and government coercion. First, it affects my sense of connection with the needs being met. When I am compelled to support others, I am resentful of their need. When I freely support others, I am empathetic and compassionate. Secondly, it affects the perception of the person receiving aid. When it comes from a government bureaucracy, it quickly leads to a sense of entitlement. When it comes through non-profits, through compassionate aid, it leads to gratitude.
|
*Stares at screen with dazed expression.
STOP PRESS! Catwoman agrees with right winger (kind of)
That made a lot of sense. The entitlement/gratitude thing. My only question:
Are they not entitled? Is it not a human right? Sure, it breeds laziness. But I'm lazy. Yes, I work, but I could do a lot more to help society. How many hours of TV does the average worker watch? A lot. Just because they are in full time employment, does not automatically guarantee their social validity. One homeless guy who gives his only blanket to a runaway teenage girl to prevent the onset of pneumonia is worth 10 overworked pretentious butt licking salesmen. (Ok ok not saying all homeless guys are like that... jeez, just making a point).
What I'm saying is, social merit (and thus entitlement) is not necessarily dictated by financial contribution.