Entitlements

Truthmonger

gue_barium wrote:

The US population in general? I disagree. We're some hard working mofo's. We're also slaves. We just refuse to acknowledge it.

I think there's a certain group of people in the U.S., be they politicians, media people, political pundits or other luminaries, who have shown through their words or deeds, an outrageous sense of entitlement. When I refer to entitlement, I'm talking about the liberties taken by the U.S. around the world. Believe me, some of the things being said by these people are not being said in places like Canada or Australia or other major democracies. Ever.

Surprisingly, these people have popular support for some of the things they say. So if that means the "U.S. population in general", then yes, I would have to say Americans are more likely than people/politicians from most other countries to say or support such crap.

gue_barium

Truthmonger wrote:

I think there's a certain group of people in the U.S., be they politicians, media people, political pundits or other luminaries, who have shown through their words or deeds, an outrageous sense of entitlement. When I refer to entitlement, I'm talking about the liberties taken by the U.S. around the world. Believe me, some of the things being said by these people are not being said in places like Canada or Australia or other major democracies. Ever.

Surprisingly, these people have popular support for some of the things they say. So if that means the "U.S. population in general", then yes, I would have to say Americans are more likely than people/politicians from most other countries to say or support such crap.

Americans don't generally support "such crap" unless they're lead to believe their safety is an issue. And then, they're not supporting the "such crap', they're supporting their self-defense.

Truthmonger

gue_barium wrote:

Americans don't generally support "such crap" unless they're lead to believe their safety is an issue. And then, they're not supporting the "such crap', they're supporting their self-defense.

Dude, you'd have to live outside the U.S. for context and some idea of what I'm referring to. Or, at least that would help. Lets go back 40 years when Cdn. Prime Minister Lester B. pearson met LBJ. The president took it for granted that Canada would just accept American missile installations on Cdn. soil. But pearson didn't, and publicly said so. When Pearson met LBJ in Texas, the prez grabbed him and supposedly said " don't come here and piss on my carpet". Nice diplomacy, huh ? So much for the decisions of a sovereign nation.

LBJ went on to Vietnam infamy, while Pearson went on to win the Nobel peace prize.

Fast forward 40 years where Pat Buchanan gets on Cdn. TV and states that Canada had better allow American installations for space missiles. In fact, he said, "its already been decided upon in Washington". That was news to Canadians. And Pat Buchanan has always been one of the more true Conservatives - esp. as it relates to America's foreign involvement !

Enter the whole Iraq issue and canada's non-involvement there. This lead blowhards like Bill O'Reilly to start threats vis-a-vis economic repercussions. "Canada is getting close to some real pain" (if it doesn't smarten up and join in the war). Canada never joined.

But this is trivial shit compared to the weekly drivel coming from Americans about the Middle East. If you're Trent Lott or Tom Tancredo or Donald Rumsfeld or John Ashcroft or one of the many other Americans who constantly make ridiculous statements, apparently its OK to go apeshit on the Middle East. The lastest reprise of "draining the swamp" refers to clearing out the middle east, and not just some of it. When Rumsfeld said, "Go massive, sweep it all up...things related or not", he wasn't fucking kidding. But this is the american mentality - that it is ENTITLED - that it has some god-given right - to do whatver it wants around the world. Fuck the collateral damage, and fuck the dissenters, b/c they don't matter. Fuck the 10 million who marched around the world in Feb./2003 in the biggest protests EVER in history. LBJ didn't give a fuck, and neither does GWB. Its arrogance and a perverse, obscene sense entitlement, pure and simple.

I could literally find some asinine statement coming from the U.S. on this topic EVERY WEEK. It'll be something along the line of Trent Lott's "If we have to, we just mow the whole place down, see what happens."

Now, tell me why tens of millions of Americans vote in favour of shit like this - not just once, but again and again ???

jeffbr

Does "entitled" mean "take through force or coersion?" As far as I can tell that's what were talking about.

Nobody is entitled to anything of mine. I'm not entitled to anything of anyone else's. I'm happy to give. And graciously accept gifts. But theft is theft, even with a government mandate.

gue_barium

Truthmonger wrote:

Dude, you'd have to live outside the U.S. for context and some idea of what I'm referring to. Or, at least that would help. Lets go back 40 years when Cdn. Prime Minister Lester B. pearson met LBJ. The president took it for granted that Canada would just accept American missile installations on Cdn. soil. But pearson didn't, and publicly said so. When Pearson met LBJ in Texas, the prez grabbed him and supposedly said " don't come here and piss on my carpet". Nice diplomacy, huh ? So much for the decisions of a sovereign nation.

LBJ went on to Vietnam infamy, while Pearson went on to win the Nobel peace prize.

Fast forward 40 years where Pat Buchanan gets on Cdn. TV and states that Canada had better allow American installations for space missiles. In fact, he said, "its already been decided upon in Washington". That was news to Canadians. And Pat Buchanan has always been one of the more true Conservatives - esp. as it relates to America's foreign involvement !

Enter the whole Iraq issue and canada's non-involvement there. This lead blowhards like Bill O'Reilly to start threats vis-a-vis economic repercussions. "Canada is getting close to some real pain" (if it doesn't smarten up and join in the war). Canada never joined.

But this is trivial shit compared to the weekly drivel coming from Americans about the Middle East. If you're Trent Lott or Tom Tancredo or Donald Rumsfeld or John Ashcroft or one of the many other Americans who constantly make ridiculous statements, apparently its OK to go apeshit on the Middle East. The lastest reprise of "draining the swamp" refers to clearing out the middle east, and not just some of it. When Rumsfeld said, "Go massive, sweep it all up...things related or not", he wasn't fucking kidding. But this is the american mentality - that it is ENTITLED - that it has some god-given right - to do whatver it wants around the world. Fuck the collateral damage, and fuck the dissenters, b/c they don't matter. Fuck the 10 million who marched around the world in Feb./2003 in the biggest protests EVER in history. LBJ didn't give a fuck, and neither does GWB. Its arrogance and a perverse, obscene sense entitlement, pure and simple.

I could literally find some asinine statement coming from the U.S. on this topic EVERY WEEK. It'll be something along the line of Trent Lott's "If we have to, we just mow the whole place down, see what happens."

Now, tell me why tens of millions of Americans vote in favour of shit like this - not just once, but again and again ???

Because they are kept in the dark. They don't see these behind the scenes things. They don't know the real reasons until it's already happened.

Truthmonger

gue_barium wrote:

Because they are kept in the dark. They don't see these behind the scenes things. They don't know the real reasons until it's already happened.

No, *YOU* are in the dark. I'm done with this discussion. Might I suggest:

http://dsmivtr.org/

gue_barium

Truthmonger wrote:

No, *YOU* are in the dark. I'm done with this discussion. Might I suggest:

http://dsmivtr.org/

Hey, hate the American people all you want. I don't have to love you either.

chopitdown

baraka wrote:

To what are we entitled and why?

as was said earlier, life, liberty and the PURSUIT of happiness. It seems that we as americans sometimes forget about that qualifier of happiness. An entitlement implies something for nothing; which I don't agree with. There are things that would be nice to have (health care, a house, white picket fence, 2.4 kids (you get the drift)) but why should those be entitlements?

gue_barium

chopitdown wrote:

as was said earlier, life, liberty and the PURSUIT of happiness. It seems that we as americans sometimes forget about that qualifier of happiness. An entitlement implies something for nothing; which I don't agree with. There are things that would be nice to have (health care, a house, white picket fence, 2.4 kids (you get the drift)) but why should those be entitlements?

Because we are required to participate in a system that requires our participation. That being the case, there needs to be a balance in that system that does allow equality under the law.

know1

baraka wrote:

Nothing? So you feel things like health care and education are privileges?

I feel everything is a privilege.

chopitdown

gue_barium wrote:

Because we are required to participate in a system that requires our participation. That being the case, there needs to be a balance in that system that does allow equality under the law.

equality in what? The only way to achieve true equality would be for everyone to be given the exact same amount of money, the same health package, the same educational opportunity etc... I believe there are things we should do to help others, but I don't think that people should necessarily be entitled to them.

Should we doll out entitlements based on what you put in the system? That seems more fair; if I pay more in taxes or contribute more to the system I should get more out of it than someone who pays less. That would be equality. Those who make more, ideally would help out those who need help but that would be charity not entitlement. I see nothing wrong with charity but I see a lot more wrong with entitlements.

gue_barium

chopitdown wrote:

equality in what?

I wrote: "equality under the law."

chopitdown

gue_barium wrote:

I wrote: "equality under the law."

if the law were simple I'd have answered the question. The law permeates every single thing in our society so it's not that simple. So what aspect of the law?

gue_barium

chopitdown wrote:

if the law were simple I'd have answered the question. The law permeates every single thing in our society so it's not that simple. So what aspect of the law?

oh, edit...your own question.

nevermind.

Kann

This is what everyone should be entitled to basic human rights
Unfortunately it's not the case. Even more unfortunately some people do not consider these as rights to which we are entitled.

surferdude

Kann wrote:

This is what everyone should be entitled to basic human rights
Unfortunately it's not the case. Even more unfortunately some people do not consider these as rights to which we are entitled.

Once you hit about article 23 it becomes bullshit. "Everyone has the right to work"...what the hell does that mean?. How about everyone has the responsibility to work to provide for themselves and their family!!!

angelica

surferdude wrote:

"Everyone has the right to work"...what the hell does that mean?

It means that when decent people seek work in order to meet their own and the needs of their families, they should not be blocked or discriminated against unfairly.

surferdude

angelica wrote:

It means that when decent people seek work in order to meet their own and the needs of their families, they should not be blocked or discriminated against unfairly.

Okay, I didn't think of it that way because just about every form of discrimination has been covered in previous articles.

I think the UN's Human Rights document started out great but then it just gets way too specific about things that have already been covered. The when it says people have a right to leisure time. All I can think is gimme a break.

angelica

surferdude wrote:

I think the UN's Human Rights document started out great but then it just gets way too specific about things that have already been covered. The when it says people have a right to leisure time. All I can think is gimme a break.

I'm guessing you'd feel quite differently if your boss decided to cut out all your breaks, your holidays, and holiday pay. Sure, you could say "I'd have the freedom to find another job, then". But, if we let go of the standards we've evolved, the whole system devolves at great cost, and what we have and take for granted could be quite different. The people now do not always understand why we've evolved as we have, and did not got through the blood, sweat and tears getting here.

I personally believe that we've eked out a certain degree of human civility for very specific reasons. We've come to understand the consequences of having not done so prior, and we know how the human being becomes imbalanced and affects everything around them in anti-life ways when we do not have certain healthy boundaries. I'm personally not looking to start behaving in more anti-life ways....quite the opposite, actually. I'm looking to raise our standards even more as we evolve. And yes, as with all forward movement, that is two steps forward, one back, so there is always fallout, and room for fine-tuning and reassessment. Evolution is progress, not perfection.

dmitry

Rights do not impose obligations on other people, except for the obligation to respect other's rights.

Rights keep people from doing things to you, they don't obligate others to do things for you.

Entitlements make other people do things for you whether they want to or not.