Two cultures: Hunters and Gatherers vs Free Stuff

[PoliticalChic]

But, these are hardly rights.
Rights are God-given, and require no one else to participate in their assignment. Speech is a right.

A nice sentiment, perhaps, but in reality rights don't exist without a government to enforce them. "God-given" rights aren't worth much, if they can be violated with impunity. For example, if I'm stronger than you, you have the right to sit meekly by while I eat YOUR kill in hopes I might leave you some scraps.

I hope that helps and clears up your misconceptions about where rights come from.

Rights vs entitlement and privilege


“True” rights are inalienable. They exist whether or not they are recognized, and whether or not the ability or the will to defend them exists.

True rights do not impose an implicit obligation upon any other person to provide them to us. In fact, rights exist in greatest measure when we are each simply “left alone”.

If something must be provided to us at the expense of someone else in order for us to have it, then it may be an entitlement, a privilage, or an act of charity – but it is not a “right”.
Rights vs entitlement and privilege | Breckshire … World with a View

The original rights were rights to live by one’s personal efforts without the interference of others, and in particular, without interference by government. That is what the founders of the United States were declaring independence from, after all. The Declaration of Independence speaks of the right to pursue happiness; it does not offer a guarantee that one will achieve happiness. This makes all the difference in the world; for in a free society there can be no guarantee that effort will meet with success.

…. there is a hard and fast difference between rights and entitlements, a difference which the past seventy years of government policy has blurred to the point of indistinguishability. A free society must recognize the distinction. Otherwise, it has no way of knowing which claims of rights to acknowledge and which to reject as spurious. Legitimate rights are easy to recognize. They can be acted on by individuals without the assistance of government and without forcibly interfering with other individuals. Entitlements, on the other hand, cannot be fulfilled except through specific government actions which require forcible interference with others. Protecting rights is thus compatible with limited government. Granting entitlements requires an ever- expanding and increasingly meddlesome state. The more entitlements the state grants, the more it must extend itself to make good on its promises, and the greater its level of interference with people’s actions.
http://www.thefreemanonline.org/columns/rights-versus-entitlements/


I hope you appreciate the education, konny

 

[Nosmo King]

Capitalism started it all with it's "you deserve" advertising themes.

Yeah, right, we have welfare because of corporate marketing strategy.

Don't be too quick to dismiss marketing strategies as a component of what changed half of us into a different culture though.

More accurately, I think the response should read: Don't be too quick to dismiss marketing strategies as a component of what changed popular culture. You're still playing a division card based on a false premise. That HALF of us changed while the OTHER HALF of us remained culturally the same.

MOST of us have become poorer in the last fifty or sixty years while a very small percentage of us became fabulously wealthy. And those who attained that wealth have culturally changed as well. They became greedier, more indifferent to suffering and contemptuous of the remaining Americans who they took advantage of.

 

[syrenn]

1. Food
2. Clothing
3. Shelter/housing
4. Furniture/appliances
5. Water, heat, air conditioning
6. An education
7. Health care/medical care
8. A living wage
9. Transportation
10. None of the above


It is every americnas right to have all of these things. It is also every americans right to work and pay for these things


I voted 10 becasue what i think you are saying/asking is:


Are Adult Americans entitled to be provided with

 

[LoneLaugher]

As an adult American, you have a fundamental right to be provided:

1. Food
2. Clothing
3. Shelter/housing
4. Furniture/appliances
5. Water, heat, air conditioning
6. An education
7. Health care/medical care
8. A living wage
9. Transportation
10. None of the above


Fifty or sixty years ago, the nation still had rich people and much less affluent people, but both groups shared essentially the same traditional values of honor, personal integrity, accountablility and responsibility and appreciation for time honored institutions of marriage, church, and local education. There were as many different circumstances, personalities and differences of opinion as ever, but essentially America was one culture of individual initiative and unlimited opportunity. This was a people that valued personal freedoms, integrity, responsibility, fiscal accountability, and American exceptionalism.

But over the decades we seem to be dividing into two distinct cultures. One is still firmly implanted in that culture of fifty/sixty years ago. The other is one that increasingly looks to society to fulfill their expectations and their basic needs. It is a culture of assumed victimization, excuses, sense of entitlement, blame, and resentment of those who seem to have already achieved the American dream. Concern for deficits, the national debt, the cost, results, or effect is not as important as meeting the needs and wants of the group.

And while of course there will be degrees of dynamics between these two extremes, the theory is that we have become two tribes. One are the hunters and gatherers as a matter of personal honor. The other are those who want the free stuff and honestly believe that the best society provides it.
Agree or disagree. I do think it is time that America has this debate.

(Can we keep this reasonably civil please?)

I do not buy this. I am a hunter/gatherer----business owner and employer. At the same time, I believe that the best society provides for the needy. You have not made the argument that we have become two tribes as described. Unless...of course....you allow for the fact that a huge number of hard working Americans a members of both.

 

[Foxfyre]

The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation;
The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;
The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;
The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;
The right of every family to a decent home;
The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;
The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;
The right to a good education.


These are all worthy and virtuous. The notion that they are Soviet inspired and therefore evil is further proof of the deterioration and abandonment of basic human goals and societal virtues by the far Right Wing.

Are they? Please explain the virtue in a concept in which Citizen A who stayed in school and educated himself, who stayed away from illegal activities and substances, who worked at whatever Mcjobs he could get to develop a work ethic, references, and marketable skills until he could qualify for a career opportunity, who waited until he got married to have kids and therefore achieved a nice place in the American dream. . . . .

. . . explain to me how leftist virtues demand that he be responsible to provide all those things on the list to Citizen B who chose not to do any of the things necessary to achieve a place in the American dream?

No fair changing or altering the question to give yourself one easier to answer.

The tenet of 'every man for himself' dismisses charity, respect and protection of those unable to compete and accomplish. What a pity.

And to think, those who espouse 'every man for himself' demand respect themselves after never showing an ounce of regard for anyone other than themselves.

There is a difference, however, between a concept of 'every man for himself', which nobody has suggested here--let's add a straw man to those four red herrings --and a concept that we are all responsible for everybody else, or more specifically, we are are all responsible to see that the government takes care of everybody. Here you get into a Marxist concept that has failed everywhere it has been tried.

And your second straw man is the implied assumption that those who accept personal responsiblity for their progress and/or success in life and who do not expect others to provide that for them are at the same time showing disrespect or unconcern for anybody else.

 

[Nosmo King]

First, there have always been unethical, dishonest, and unprincipled people in the world. There always will be unethical, dishonest, and unprincipled people in the world. These people exist among all socioeconomic and political classes. And in my opinion, they are pretty rare. We can choose to focus on these as a red herring to distract from the topic, or we can choose to focus on the topic which takes in all Americans rather than the few unethical, dishonest, and unprincipled to be found both among the rich and among the much less rich.

There is nothing in the OP that villifies education by anybody. Another red herring.

There is nothing in the OP that characterizes the less advantaged as leeches or which group holds the high moral ground. The third and fourth red herrings of your post.

The cultural divide is essentially a disparity between how we see people as deserving of anything. You may see the very rich who cut jobs as being undeserving. I may see the guy who won't take the unattractive job that would get him off food stamps as undeserving. I might take the Biblical view of he who will not work, let him not eat. You may take the Biblical view of he who feeds the one who is hungry serves the Lord.

There are two legitimate points of view to be debated here.

But it's easier to screw your fellow American in the quest for wealth. Therefore, any guilt associated with that can be easily dismissed as 'quaint'. Sure there have always been the unethical, the criminal, the dishonest. But without the encumbrance of ethics, more folks will follow that path than not. And here we are. 1% vs 99%.

You listed 'local' education. Yet 'public' education is the whipping boy of everyone willing to cede power to the market rather than the public. What a shame. If they had their way, only those with means could get an education. A permanent subclass of uneducated poor would forever languish while others can snidely comment "Get a job, bum!" Ah! Freedom to exploit! Get the state out of the police game and let the corporations rule as they are mandated to by Conservatism. gobbledygook.

 

[Foxfyre]

As an adult American, you have a fundamental right to be provided:

1. Food
2. Clothing
3. Shelter/housing
4. Furniture/appliances
5. Water, heat, air conditioning
6. An education
7. Health care/medical care
8. A living wage
9. Transportation
10. None of the above


Fifty or sixty years ago, the nation still had rich people and much less affluent people, but both groups shared essentially the same traditional values of honor, personal integrity, accountablility and responsibility and appreciation for time honored institutions of marriage, church, and local education. There were as many different circumstances, personalities and differences of opinion as ever, but essentially America was one culture of individual initiative and unlimited opportunity. This was a people that valued personal freedoms, integrity, responsibility, fiscal accountability, and American exceptionalism.

But over the decades we seem to be dividing into two distinct cultures. One is still firmly implanted in that culture of fifty/sixty years ago. The other is one that increasingly looks to society to fulfill their expectations and their basic needs. It is a culture of assumed victimization, excuses, sense of entitlement, blame, and resentment of those who seem to have already achieved the American dream. Concern for deficits, the national debt, the cost, results, or effect is not as important as meeting the needs and wants of the group.

And while of course there will be degrees of dynamics between these two extremes, the theory is that we have become two tribes. One are the hunters and gatherers as a matter of personal honor. The other are those who want the free stuff and honestly believe that the best society provides it.

Agree or disagree. I do think it is time that America has this debate.

(Can we keep this reasonably civil please?)

I love your thread.

January 11, 1944 FDR assigned various 'rights' to Americans.

Among these are:
The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation;
The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;
The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;
The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;
The right of every family to a decent home;
The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;
The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;
The right to a good education.

But, these are hardly rights.
Rights are God-given, and require no one else to participate in their assignment. Speech is a right.

Entitlements require that someone provide same, and, most often, that others be deprived of something in order to provide the entitlement.
The huge tax burden necessary to provide the ‘rights’ and fund federal welfare programs can be laid at the feet of the New Deal. Before 1940, only 5% of Americans paid any income tax, and the maximum was 25%. By the end of WWII, 2/3 of American families paid income tax- and it started at 24%, with a $500 exemption.

a. It went up to 94% over $200k. So, if one earned $300k, one kept only $6000 of the last $100k.

b. Withholding was re-introduced so the government got the money immediately. (Had been repealed in 1916.)

The attitude of the FDR government can be seen in these words of A.B. “Happy” Chandler, a former Kentucky governor:
“[A]ll of us owe the government; we owe it for everything we have—and that is the basis of obligation—and the government can take everything we have if the government needs it. . . . The government can assert its right to have all the taxes it needs for any purpose, either now or at any time in the future.”
From "FDR Goes To War," by Burton and Anita Folsom

FDR never proposed that those rights be given to every American for free but that every American has a right to expect to be able to obtain those necessities in life. When our society has reached a level where those basic rights are no longer obtainable by our citizens we need to reasses our priorities

This is a valid observation. I haven't checked so I don't know whether FDR saw these as fundamental rights to which every American could aspire to or whether he saw them as fundamental rights to which every American was entitled whether he or she could afford them or not. But the answer to that is absolutely what I am shooting for in this thread.

So that brings us to your next comment as to them no longer obtainable by our citizens. Have we reached that point? Is the American dream--the idea that all citizens can EARN a piece of the pie--dead? If so, that would suggest that American exceptionalism no longer exists and the great experiment of the Founders has failed. And we have no choice but to accept continued decline until we are no better than any other struggling, stagnant country.

So what should our priorities be? To figure out how to give people more free stuff until the well runs so dry we don't have any more stuff to give?

Or to promote values and a mindset that begins weaning people off the free stuff and redevelops the hunter/gatherer society of the mid twentieth century?

 

[Dragon]

To expand slightly more on what I was saying above:

The fatal flaw in this poll and, by implication, in the entire argument presented is that the words "provided with" are undefined and unspecified. We do not know BY WHOM these things are to be "provided," or IN WHAT WAY, or IN RETURN FOR WHAT, or, really, anything.

If the government sets up the economy to maximize the earnings of working people, the availability of jobs, and the strength of organized labor, so that everyone has the opportunity to work at a good job and use their earnings to purchase everything on the list, then the government has in one sense "provided" them. And if it does these things, then there is no need for it to "provide" them in any other way, except for those people who for whatever reason are unable to work.

As that is the type of action that most Americans would like to see the government take, the answer to the poll's question is, for that reason and ONLY that reason, "Yes, all of the above."

If on the other hand the government instead organizes things so that profit margins are maximized, so are income gaps, jobs are scarce, and pay is low, then the government is in the position where it must provide these goods in the form of handouts if most people are going to have them. That is the direction we are headed, but since it is the WRONG direction, the answer is also "None of the above."

This thread as presented is itself a gigantic straw man and bears no relationship to observable reality whatsoever.

 

[PoliticalChic]

As an adult American, you have a fundamental right to be provided:

1. Food
2. Clothing
3. Shelter/housing
4. Furniture/appliances
5. Water, heat, air conditioning
6. An education
7. Health care/medical care
8. A living wage
9. Transportation
10. None of the above


Fifty or sixty years ago, the nation still had rich people and much less affluent people, but both groups shared essentially the same traditional values of honor, personal integrity, accountablility and responsibility and appreciation for time honored institutions of marriage, church, and local education. There were as many different circumstances, personalities and differences of opinion as ever, but essentially America was one culture of individual initiative and unlimited opportunity. This was a people that valued personal freedoms, integrity, responsibility, fiscal accountability, and American exceptionalism.

But over the decades we seem to be dividing into two distinct cultures. One is still firmly implanted in that culture of fifty/sixty years ago. The other is one that increasingly looks to society to fulfill their expectations and their basic needs. It is a culture of assumed victimization, excuses, sense of entitlement, blame, and resentment of those who seem to have already achieved the American dream. Concern for deficits, the national debt, the cost, results, or effect is not as important as meeting the needs and wants of the group.

And while of course there will be degrees of dynamics between these two extremes, the theory is that we have become two tribes. One are the hunters and gatherers as a matter of personal honor. The other are those who want the free stuff and honestly believe that the best society provides it.

Agree or disagree. I do think it is time that America has this debate.

(Can we keep this reasonably civil please?)

I love your thread.

January 11, 1944 FDR assigned various 'rights' to Americans.

Among these are:
The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation;
The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;
The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;
The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;
The right of every family to a decent home;
The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;
The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;
The right to a good education.

But, these are hardly rights.
Rights are God-given, and require no one else to participate in their assignment. Speech is a right.

Entitlements require that someone provide same, and, most often, that others be deprived of something in order to provide the entitlement.
The huge tax burden necessary to provide the ‘rights’ and fund federal welfare programs can be laid at the feet of the New Deal. Before 1940, only 5% of Americans paid any income tax, and the maximum was 25%. By the end of WWII, 2/3 of American families paid income tax- and it started at 24%, with a $500 exemption.

a. It went up to 94% over $200k. So, if one earned $300k, one kept only $6000 of the last $100k.

b. Withholding was re-introduced so the government got the money immediately. (Had been repealed in 1916.)

The attitude of the FDR government can be seen in these words of A.B. “Happy” Chandler, a former Kentucky governor:
“[A]ll of us owe the government; we owe it for everything we have—and that is the basis of obligation—and the government can take everything we have if the government needs it. . . . The government can assert its right to have all the taxes it needs for any purpose, either now or at any time in the future.”
From "FDR Goes To War," by Burton and Anita Folsom

FDR never proposed that those rights be given to every American for free but that every American has a right to expect to be able to obtain those necessities in life. When our society has reached a level where those basic rights are no longer obtainable by our citizens we need to reasses our priorities

Wrong.

From the speech:
"We have come to a clear realization of the fact that true individual freedom cannot exist without economic security and independence. “Necessitous men are not free men.” People who are hungry and out of a job are the stuff of which dictatorships are made.

In our day these economic truths have become accepted as self-evident. We have accepted, so to speak, a second Bill of Rights under which a new basis of security and prosperity can be established for all—regardless of station, race, or creed.

ll of these rights spell security. And after this war is won we must be prepared to move forward, in the implementation of these rights, to new goals of human happiness and well-being.

America’s own rightful place in the world depends in large part upon how fully these and similar rights have been carried into practice for our citizens."
Franklin D. Roosevelt - American Heritage Center, Inc.

 

[Dragon]

FDR never proposed that those rights be given to every American for free but that every American has a right to expect to be able to obtain those necessities in life. When our society has reached a level where those basic rights are no longer obtainable by our citizens we need to reasses our priorities

Wrong.

From the speech:
"We have come to a clear realization of the fact that true individual freedom cannot exist without economic security and independence. “Necessitous men are not free men.” People who are hungry and out of a job are the stuff of which dictatorships are made.

In our day these economic truths have become accepted as self-evident. We have accepted, so to speak, a second Bill of Rights under which a new basis of security and prosperity can be established for all—regardless of station, race, or creed.

ll of these rights spell security. And after this war is won we must be prepared to move forward, in the implementation of these rights, to new goals of human happiness and well-being.

America’s own rightful place in the world depends in large part upon how fully these and similar rights have been carried into practice for our citizens."
Franklin D. Roosevelt - American Heritage Center, Inc.

[Size emphasis added]

He is not wrong. Note the words emphasized above.

 

[Claudette]

No matter how you look at it the takers are fast coming to the point where they outnumber the providers.

Once that happens who will provide??

 

[Nosmo King]

Are they? Please explain the virtue in a concept in which Citizen A who stayed in school and educated himself, who stayed away from illegal activities and substances, who worked at whatever Mcjobs he could get to develop a work ethic, references, and marketable skills until he could qualify for a career opportunity, who waited until he got married to have kids and therefore achieved a nice place in the American dream. . . . .

. . . explain to me how leftist virtues demand that he be responsible to provide all those things on the list to Citizen B who chose not to do any of the things necessary to achieve a place in the American dream?

No fair changing or altering the question to give yourself one easier to answer.

Citizen A (your example) is not directly responsible for providing all those things to Citizen B anymore than Citizen A is directly responsible for maintaining the Pacific Fleet or Yellowstone National Park. But the common government of both Citizen A and Citizen B should provide for those services. The framing of your question infers that all the tax dollars of one person should go directly into the pocket of another.

Well, my tax dollars have shown up on the balance sheets of McDonald Douglas, Grumman, General Dynamics and Halliburton. They have also been used to provide a warm home, an education for other's children, meals for the hungry and medical aid to the sick and elderly.

Now I can argue that those are more virtuous than giving money to defense contractors so they can enjoy a conference in Hawaii or bonuses for their corporate leaders.

I think that if Citizen B is never helped, there are more dire consequences than if Halliburton gets a no bid contract. Call me crazy, but I have been told that the United States was founded on Judeo-Christian principles. I'm just following those principles.

 

[LoneLaugher]

No matter how you look at it the takers are fast coming to the point where they outnumber the providers.

Once that happens who will provide??

No. They are not.

 

[Robert_Stephens]

In a free Republic such as the US, we have the right to pursuit any and all pf those items, but nowhere do I see a mandate that any of those are to be provided or to be given.

Robert

 

[occupied]

I don't know that we have a right to be provided with these things but I believe we should be guaranteed the opportunity to earn any of these things even on a modest salary. Healthcare and higher education is already off that list and the rest are headed for becoming luxury items also if wages do not improve.

 

[Foxfyre]

1. Food
2. Clothing
3. Shelter/housing
4. Furniture/appliances
5. Water, heat, air conditioning
6. An education
7. Health care/medical care
8. A living wage
9. Transportation
10. None of the above


It is every americnas right to have all of these things. It is also every americans right to work and pay for these things


I voted 10 becasue what i think you are saying/asking is:


Are Adult Americans entitled to be provided with

This goes to the heart of it and also the excellent explanation of what unalienable/inalienable rights are in PC's last post.

The question in the OP/poll is "Do adult Americans have a fundamental right to be provided with. . . ."

Whenever we are provided such things, it requires participation by or a contribution from one or more other people. Once we are adults, do any of us have a fundamental right to demand any product or service from another human being? To be provided that product or service by other human beings?

If we do, other than the degree of slavery, what separates us from the slave masters of the 19th century? If I can demand that you do something for me or give me something, do you really have any rights at all?

The only God given, unalienable rights, as the Founders saw it, are what require no participation or contribution by any other person. If we are to be a free people, everything else must be established in a social contract with others and, the experiment in American exceptionalism requires that social contract be agreed on and be of mutual benefit to those entering into it.

Whenever government can establish and dictate the social contract, we no longer have American exceptionalism but are reverting back to the monarchy and/or other totalitarian government from which the Founders sought to free us.

All this has absolutely nothing to do with voluntary charity or concern for the less advantaged which is a totally different subject.

 

[Foxfyre]

I don't know that we have a right to be provided with these things but I believe we should be guaranteed the opportunity to earn any of these things even on a modest salary. Healthcare and higher education is already off that list and the rest are headed for becoming luxury items also if wages do not improve.

What difference do you see between receiving these things free versus requiring others to provide them at a price you can afford?

 

[kwc57]

Capitalism started it all with it's "you deserve" advertising themes.

Move to Greece, you'll love it there. Sunbathing by day, rioting by night.

 

[Foxfyre]

Are they? Please explain the virtue in a concept in which Citizen A who stayed in school and educated himself, who stayed away from illegal activities and substances, who worked at whatever Mcjobs he could get to develop a work ethic, references, and marketable skills until he could qualify for a career opportunity, who waited until he got married to have kids and therefore achieved a nice place in the American dream. . . . .

. . . explain to me how leftist virtues demand that he be responsible to provide all those things on the list to Citizen B who chose not to do any of the things necessary to achieve a place in the American dream?

No fair changing or altering the question to give yourself one easier to answer.

Citizen A (your example) is not directly responsible for providing all those things to Citizen B anymore than Citizen A is directly responsible for maintaining the Pacific Fleet or Yellowstone National Park. But the common government of both Citizen A and Citizen B should provide for those services. The framing of your question infers that all the tax dollars of one person should go directly into the pocket of another.

Well, my tax dollars have shown up on the balance sheets of McDonald Douglas, Grumman, General Dynamics and Halliburton. They have also been used to provide a warm home, an education for other's children, meals for the hungry and medical aid to the sick and elderly.

Now I can argue that those are more virtuous than giving money to defense contractors so they can enjoy a conference in Hawaii or bonuses for their corporate leaders.

I think that if Citizen B is never helped, there are more dire consequences than if Halliburton gets a no bid contract. Call me crazy, but I have been told that the United States was founded on Judeo-Christian principles. I'm just following those principles.

No, no, no. You changed the question and I did not give permission to do that.

The question is not what benefit is there to society if Citizen B is helped. The question is not whether there are merits in helping Citizen B.

The question is on what moral authority do you require Citizen A to provide for Citizen B whether individually or collectively and how do you justify the choice of who is given the moral authority to confiscate what Citizen A rightfuly earned or acquired it and give it to Citizen B?

 

[kwc57]

I checked every single box including "none of the above," and would have added "this poll is asking the wrong questions due to a completely non-factual view of reality and a meaningless false dichotomy between points of view, neither of which substantially exists in this society, nor has either of them existed for approximately ten thousand years" if it had allowed me to do so.

Since it didn't, I am adding those words here.

You're welcome to start your own poll and thread.