Being provided a living If one can't work

Post Reply New Topic

First, let's define as part of working being able to go through the process of finding work.   This includes job interviews, job searches, networking, etc, etc.

Now,  is one entitled to being provided a living if one is incapable of working to basic food, clothing, shelter to medical care?   Are they entitled to be given the necessary tools and teachings so they can be able to work?   What if no tool or teaching is possible to be provided?  Many people especially conservatives and libertarians would say no.  I've read their arguments and here is the main crux of their reasoning.    They call this and other things like this entitlements.   They perceive entitlements as slavery.  To break it down, Peter works making sprockets 8 hours per day 40 hours per week at $5.00 per hour.  X percentage of that is taken to spend on differing expenditures including what is called entitlement programs.   We will call the percentage spent on entitlements X1.   What conservatives and libertarians perceive is that forcing Peter to give his money to pay for Paul is legalized theft and slavery.

My counter argument is that this is false.   My argument is one is either entitled to being provided a living if one can't work or one is entitled to being provided the means and knowledge that one can provide oneself a living in a way one can grasp and understand.

Suicide is wrong and Immoral according to Pro-life Conservatives and Libertarians (Argument from Inalienable Rights)

My first rationale to my argument is this.   If one can't provide oneself a living and others won't provide it to you then I ask what is the logical consequence of this.  The consequence is that one will eventually die a slow death from starvation, dehydration, etc.

A quote from the Declaration of Independence says this "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."    These conservatives and libertarians would say that when I have the right to life all it says is that no one can take away my life and I'm not entitled to have happiness but only the right to pursue it.   Here is my question to this.  Am I allowed to give my life away?

In other words, am I allowed to kill myself or commit suicide?   If we go by the Oxford dictionary and if we go by historical precedent of the USA in various states I would say the answer is no.  In Florida especially, one would be Baker Acted.   Looking at a pro-life and anti-euthanasia sites such as this one would claim that the answer is no and these people and other pro-life websites base their reasoning on the constitution and morality and ethics of the Holy Bible.  I and everyone else is not allowed to commit suicide according to pro-life morality and ethos.  Now, if one can't work, others won't help him or show him how to get work and maintain the work and/or they won't provide them a living then are we not forcing this person into a form of slow suicide.   I would say the answer is yes.   This is a form of forced suicide and if suicide is wrong and immoral then are we not forcing someone who can't work to commit suicide and be immoral?   How is that pro-life?

Render Unto Caesar to what is Caesar's and Render Unto God to What is God's (Mark 12:17) (Arguement from the Bible)

If we go by the Bible which these pro-lifers go by which is what a number of traditionalists (conservatives) are then they're making the assumption that everything they have received through the sweat of their own brow is theirs to keep.   If we must accept the Bible as truth with no errors in it and is perfect and none of us are misinterpreting it then if we look at it this verse right here then not everything one earns is for one to keep.   Some of what you earn goes to Caesar and some goes to God.   Then it begs the question what is supposed go to Caesar and what goes to God?   No, according to the Bible not everything is yours.  It is Caesar's and God's money.  God's portion is supposed to go to those who are in need whether it is money, mental help, etc.  Again, not everything is yours to keep.   Even a portion of Caesar's revenue is supposed to go to God as well.

In fact, if we want to be truthfully technically coming from the Biblical world view nothing is really ours.  Everything belongs to God since he is the creator and manufactured existence itself.   What we really are is his tenants and his stewards.   He has laid down rules on how we as humankind are supposed to be good stewards of his creation.   Part of that is taking care of those who can't do for themselves such as myself which means that the money and resources you say is yours and you have earned is not yours.  It belongs to God and God told us how to partition these things out.

Habitable Space (Argument from a Secular Perspective)

There is only limited habitable space on our planet.  With this being said, those who are more established meaning they're old comers had more opportunity.   The new comers don't have as much opportunity since there is less and less habitable space for them to go.   Therefore, the old-comers have a lot more clout and more influence on public policy then those who are new and are trying to establish themselves.   We all have the right to pursue happiness according to our inalienable rights stated in the Declaration of Independence.

But, what if one is limited in what one can do due to limited opportunity?   If there is limited opportunity due to one's condition or limited habitable space problem then how can one truthfully pursue happiness?   Can one produce habitable land space and/or any kind of space?   One can transfer dirt but can one really manufacture dirt and can one manufacture the physical space the dirt, raw materials, water, air, etc is in.   Can one manufacture existence.  No, they can't.  Is it moral to really claim ownership on something one never produced or is one just simply a tenant and steward of existence and reality?  Even the Constitution gives the US government the powers of eminent domain.   Does one really own land or space?  It would seem like eminent domain says no.

What if my Argument is fallacious?

If my argument that made just now is flawed and based in fallacious reasoning then they're going to have to accept that suicide is a valid and moral decision one can make.   Suicide ends up becoming a moral duty if one is not entitled to being provided a living or the means so one can provide oneself a living.  Suicide becomes a way to prevent enslavement of others through entitlements.

Conclusion:  If one truthfully is not entitled to being provided a living if one can't provide oneself a living then I argue one does not have the inalienable right to life at all.

Quote from Twilight Zone, The Obsolete Man.   "The chancellor, the late chancellor, was only partly correct. He was obsolete. But so is the State, the entity he worshiped. Any state, entity, or ideology becomes obsolete when it stockpiles the wrong weapons: when it captures territories, but not minds; when it enslaves millions, but convinces nobody. When it is naked, yet puts on armor and calls it faith, while in the Eyes of God it has no faith at all. Any state, any entity, any ideology which fails to recognize the worth, the dignity, the rights of Man...that state is obsolete. A case to be filed under "M" for "Mankind" - in The Twilight Zone."

People should be forced against their will to appease potential suicidal people?

Where does it end ... people should be forced to marry lonely people, because lonely people might suicide?

The USA really seems to have more of an issue with this than the UK. We find it puzzling that so many Americans don't care about the less advantaged.

I'm not saying we don't have any issues in the UK. I heard someone on the radio with a degenerative illness, think it was Parkinson's, saying he keeps getting reviewed for his eligibility to work. Um, he's not going to magically get better benefits assessors

Part of our wage in the UK goes towards National Insurance. Most of us accept that. It's a big pot we all pay into. If an accident happens I get free medical care and get put back together because I've been helping to pay into this pot. That happened. If I've never needed an operation at least my money goes to someone who does need to have an operation. I have no issue with that.

Same with unemployment. I didn't have a job for 2 months after leaving college. I received a benefit. Hopefully I won't be in that situation again. But should it arise I'm glad I've been paying NI and there will be a safety net.

Even if I never need a safety net again I don't mind that what I'm paying will go to helping someone less able to find employment than me.

I don't see the problem. Some people are just selfish and lack empathy. I find it bizarre just how much that lack of empathy is ingrained into American culture.

I will never ever ever live in America.

Everyone should be provided a living, even if they can work. Work should be something you choose to do in order to pass the time and get luxuries, not something that you have to do to survive. This would also allow for the minimum wage to be scrapped, creating jobs, and would add demand to the economy, creating even more jobs, and would increase leisure time, creating even more jobs.