Confusing rights with entitlements has a lot of seniors wondering where all the money went. by Larry Warrick
(libertarian)
Saturday, July 9, 2011
Elections are such fascinating things. Originally, only landowners were eligible to vote. The thinking was that those who owned land had a vested interest in seeing that their government was kept within its constitutional bounds. Over the years the electoral rolls were expanded in a spirit of 'inclusiveness', to the point that we now give a voice to anyone who wants to express a preference. This one is my favorite. Of course, stupidity is not limited to the average village idiot. These girls are supposed to be our best and brightest.
So here we sit. The average Joe works his 40 or 50 years, safe in the knowledge that the government, as elected by people such as those highlighted above, is quietly squirreling away 15% of his paycheck to take care of him in his old age. Entitlement is not a derogatory term, to some, it actually implies a right of ownership. From Wikipedia:
"An entitlement is a guarantee of access to benefits based on established rights or by legislation. A "right" is itself an entitlement associated with a moral or social principle, such that an "entitlement" is a provision made in accordance with legal framework of a society. Typically, entitlements are laws based on concepts of principle ("rights") which are themselves based in concepts of social equality or enfranchisement." Only a card-carrying socialist could convolute rights and entitlements and make it 'sound' so 'right'.
Of course, a government elected by people as corrupt or stupid (pick your own pejorative) as seen above would not exactly be staffed by 'angels', hence the extra 15% of income, taken by force of government (is there any other kind?) under color of social right and legal provision was purloined for use in other areas of government intervention, such as supporting the 'right' of every American to be informed on the drinking habits of Chinese prostitutes, for instance.
So we reach the big day. A working lifetime has passed and it's time to look to the green pasture of retirement only to be told that the money's not there anymore, that it had to be used in maintenance of all of our other 'rights' as 'entitlements'.
If one takes a step back and looks with open eyes at how all of this was possible, it's really not that complicated. America votes for 'bread and circuses', electing those who promise the loosest definition of what a 'right' is, giving no thought to how these 'rights' are to be derived, or who is going to do the work to generate the wealth to pay for them. Hence the alphabet soup of government departments and bureaus we labor to support. Of course, true rights are God-given and free of charge. They cost nothing in their existence and are truly self-evident in their benefit to 'society'. Only 'entitlements' cost money. That's how you tell the difference.
Millions of people paid good, intrinsically worthless, fiat money into a system that was supposed to alleviate poverty in old age, and in the process giving themselves a 'right' to retire. What could possibly go wrong? Someone 'stole' the money (used it to expand the definition of 'rights') and now there's no money. I suppose the right thing to do would be to demand reparation from those who purloined the funds to begin with. Oh, wait, those were the duly elected officials as chosen by the electorate I outlined earlier. Nah, let's do the socialist thing and look for someone else to pay for it. Unfortunately, only poverty, not wealth, can be redistributed.
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 9
thumbs so far
The views expressed
in this article are those of Larry Warrick only and
do not represent the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates.
Larry Warrick is solely responsible for the contents
of this article and is not an employee or otherwise affiliated
with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
Posted By: Bentree
Date: July 10, 2011 11:03:12 AM
Larry wrote about rights: "They cost nothing in their existence and are truly self-evident in their benefit to 'society'. Only 'entitlements' cost money. That's how you tell the difference."
So is this true? When you awoke this morning and arose from your bed what direct cost have you incurred to enable you to be delusionally secure in your home. The one that comes directly to mind are property taxes, well, so much for private property. You can own a means of conveyance, park it on your property and as long as you don't use it on public highways, everything is fine. Except in California where you pay a fee to keep it on the States book of future income producing assets. Of course you can move it out of state where again you will either pay rent or property tax, so much for private property. Now if you have a neighbor, ok! that works for you, not for him. Rental? Again!
Rights have cost and thats the reality of it! It is when those costs become unreasonable, well who decides that? Ah! The 120 Trillion dollar question. Will it be the prostitutes or the johns who decide? Personally, I just want to walk down the street unmolested.
Remember what Lady Hilliary said? "Paraphased", "To believe that what you make or have belongs to you is unreasonable".
We rent everything from the government, even our rights, The only caveat is the 2nd. Amendment. It was I believe the only true cost cutting device provided to us. To be opened and used when all else has failed, "True Freedom comes from the barrel of a gun", Mao, kind of ironic isn't it.
This more in the line of my 2 cents, I liked the article. "Damn the torpedoes, full steam ahead". "OHP"
Posted By: rwilymz
Date: July 12, 2011 07:15:48 AM
I'm glad someone else comprehends the basic difference between a right and an entitlement. At least there's two of us in the wilderness.
We have the right to just about everything. We have the right to fly on commercial airplanes ... we have the right to healthcare ... The right to do a thing means that the government leaves you alone to do it [TSA, I'm looking at you, here]. The right to do a thing also means that the government does not provide it for you.
