Quote:
Recently, I asked a group of college students if they believed poor people in this country were owed anything from our government.
Initially, they said the government should provide for those who are less fortunate. However, when I stressed that the question wasn't whether the government should provide for them, but rather if the government owed poor people anything, the students' opinions changed.
|
Well, what this bit tells me is that people give different answers to different questions.
Should we provide for the less fortunate? Should we prevent starvation, homelessness, the poverty trap, and the Dickensian misery and petty crime that comes from having no other option? Most people will say, yes.
Should somebody who has the ability and opportunity to support themselves by selling their labour, instead be given a steady supply of obligation-free taxpayers' money so they can lead a life of laziness? Most people will say, no.
Asking, does the government "owe" poor people anything has connotations of unrequited obligation, which conjures up images like the second example. So people generally say, no.
It's an old and easy trick, to couch the question in terms that will support the answer you want, then interpret the answer as an impartial general response. Plenty of people do it, but there's no need to take the results seriously.