Liberals, why do you believe people are entitled to the work of others?

Status
Not open for further replies.

ChristJudgeOfAll

Well-Known Member
Jul 1, 2015
902
217
47
✟9,729.00
Faith
Protestant
Why do you think the less successful are entitled to things from the more successful?

Compassion is great, I am all for rich giving to the poor, but there is no morality in taking money from the rich and giving it to the poor.

No one is entitled to the fruits and labor of another. If that were the case, society would cease to progress forward.

What am I missing?
 

iluvatar5150

Well-Known Member
Aug 3, 2012
25,028
23,939
Baltimore
✟551,874.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
Why do you think the less successful are entitled to things from the more successful?

Compassion is great, I am all for rich giving to the poor, but there is no morality in taking money from the rich and giving it to the poor.

No one is entitled to the fruits and labor of another. If that were the case, society would cease to progress forward.

What am I missing?

idk what you're missing, but you might want to go back and look at the OT rules regarding gleaning of the fields, think about how that compares to a modern welfare system, and then try to see how that jives with your claim that one man being entitled to the fruits of another would cause society to cease its forward progress.
 
Upvote 0

KWCrazy

Newbie
Apr 13, 2009
7,229
1,993
Bowling Green, KY
✟82,877.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
idk what you're missing, but you might want to go back and look at the OT rules regarding gleaning of the fields, think about how that compares to a modern welfare system, and then try to see how that jives with your claim that one man being entitled to the fruits of another would cause society to cease its forward progress.
Please do not use the Scriptures to justify taking from those who earned to give to those who do not in exchange for votes and political power. Caring for those who cannot care for themselves is charity. Caring for those who can take care of themselves but choose not to is indulging laziness. Taking from those who produce to give to those who have not earned it is called theft.
 
Upvote 0

Avid

A Pilgrim and a Sojourner...
Sep 21, 2013
2,129
753
✟13,263.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
We have heard the analogy of Robin Hood. However, that historic character did not take from people who produced, to give to people who would not or could not. Robin of Locksley, the historic character, was righting wrongs done by theft and graft, which is NOT what is being discussed here. We are discussing the modern version of this, where people referencing Robin Hood are more the Sheriff of Nottingham, and his henchmen, than a band of merry men utilizing the cover of the forest for protection from government tyranny.
 
  • Like
Reactions: KarateCowboy
Upvote 0

rambot

Senior Member
Apr 13, 2006
24,494
13,118
Up your nose....wid a rubbah hose.
✟361,713.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Greens
I believe we are obliged to take care of those around us. You are looking at it the wrong way. You are only considering what you are losing instead of what you could be giving.

I think that's a bad attitude to have towards money in cases of charity.

0a95343242a52d241a862ca31d5c0fb2.jpg
 
Upvote 0

KitKatMatt

stupid bleeding heart feminist liberal
May 2, 2013
5,818
1,602
✟29,520.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
We must ALL do what we can to help society as a whole. That's kind of the whole point of being in a society.

I can't do much directly because I am not skilled for it, but I am working and totally willing to pay extra taxes to fund socialized healthcare, food programs, water treatment to provide people with clean drinking water, housing, schooling, public transportation, access to public information, etc.
 
Upvote 0

ebia

Senior Contributor
Jul 6, 2004
41,711
2,142
A very long way away. Sometimes even further.
✟54,775.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Politics
AU-Greens
Why do you think the less successful are entitled to things from the more successful?

Compassion is great, I am all for rich giving to the poor, but there is no morality in taking money from the rich and giving it to the poor.

No one is entitled to the fruits and labor of another. If that were the case, society would cease to progress forward.

What am I missing?
I don't accept the modern western hyper-individualistic premise on which the question is based.
 
Upvote 0

Grizzly

Enemy of Christmas
Supporter
Jul 6, 2002
13,036
1,674
57
Tallahassee
✟46,060.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
I don't accept the modern western hyper-individualistic premise on which the question is based.

Yes - it's the premise I also have fault with. Some people don't see that the reason they are able to produce fruits is in a large part due the fact that we have a functioning society. They see their own work and efforts, sure, but they don't see the larger role our society has in making that happen. Right now we live in a society that has roads, bridges, electricity, clean water, and other such things that allow for commerce to flourish. We also live in a society where the rule of law is strong, and we don't have to build walls around all of our houses and hire small armies to protect our lands and businesses from bands of roving thugs (as they have to do in some third world countries). All the "ground work" to make businesses flourish comes from operating a society that keeps law and order, and also keeps the poor at a level financially by which they are still participants in the economy. And that requires taxes.
 
Upvote 0

Maren

Veteran
Oct 20, 2007
8,709
1,659
✟57,368.00
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Private
I don't accept the modern western hyper-individualistic premise on which the question is based.

I agree about it being a flawed premise. To take the premise in a different direction, why should I pay to support people who are "less successful" (in the terms of the OP) such as firemen, policemen, or military members?

The true arguments here are benefits to society -- we support police, military, fire departments, etc. because they help protect us and their property. We support schools because they both educate us and our families, but also make other citizens educated (and better able to participate in the political process), as well as making society more prosperous as they are able to work and generate income. We provide welfare and unemployment to help people return to being productive members of society and, if you want to be cynical, because it is cheaper to give them food and housing than to put them in jail after they steal because they have nothing to eat and no shelter.

Now, you can argue how effective some of these programs are but, the fact remains, the reasons we "take from the rich" is to improve society -- and there are clear benefits to every program we have to "give to the poor"; the real argument is about the various programs, such as if they are needed, and are they working in a way to meet the goals the program was set up to accomplish.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Oafman

Try telling that to these bog brained murphys
Dec 19, 2012
7,106
4,063
Malice
✟28,559.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Politics
UK-Labour
Why do you think the less successful are entitled to things from the more successful?

Compassion is great, I am all for rich giving to the poor, but there is no morality in taking money from the rich and giving it to the poor.

No one is entitled to the fruits and labor of another. If that were the case, society would cease to progress forward.

What am I missing?
Successful people are rightly rewarded. They obtain wealth, and the luxuries and power that come with it. This acts as an effective incentive for everyone who has the right opportunities, to try to better themselves.

But it is only possible for successful people to succeed when society provides them with a stable foundation on which to do so.

If there is a large enough proportion of the population who are desperate and starving, prepared to do anything to survive until tomorrow, then anarchy is inevitable. So civilised societies ensure that everyone has at least the bare minimum to survive.

Why wasn't the childhood development of these successful people stunted by a curable disease? Because civilised societies ensure that healthcare is available to everyone, so curable disease is not widespread, whether in successful or less successful people. Everyone benefits, not just the most poor, who 'have not paid' for this healthcare provision.

Successful people can only flourish in successful economies. And a successful economy needs an educated population and workforce. So civilised societies ensure that every child gets a good education, not just the children of those who were successful.

All of this is why those who are successful have a moral responsibility to support these foundations, because they are what made their success possible, and will make the success of others possible in the future.
Adam Smith said:
No society can surely be flourishing and happy, of which the far greater part of the members are poor and miserable.
 
Upvote 0

Armoured

So is America great again yet?
Supporter
Aug 31, 2013
34,358
14,061
✟234,967.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Why do you think the less successful are entitled to things from the more successful?

Compassion is great, I am all for rich giving to the poor, but there is no morality in taking money from the rich and giving it to the poor.

No one is entitled to the fruits and labor of another. If that were the case, society would cease to progress forward.

What am I missing?
Why do the "more successful" think they're entitled to the work of the less successful without adequate compensation?
 
Upvote 0

Larniavc

Leading a blameless life
Jul 14, 2015
12,271
7,627
51
✟312,671.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
UK-Liberal-Democrats
Why do you think the less successful are entitled to things from the more successful?

Compassion is great, I am all for rich giving to the poor, but there is no morality in taking money from the rich and giving it to the poor.

No one is entitled to the fruits and labor of another. If that were the case, society would cease to progress forward.

What am I missing?

What you are missing is that the equation is not [effort in] equals [economic status].

[effort in]+[luck]equals[economic status].

Luck is a huge force multiplier in this case.

Such progressive methods such as taxing the rich reduce the effects of luck.

I was able to go to uni only because my government put up the money in the form of grant.

Now I pay a slightly higher tax rate because of my income and the size of my house.

What is so wrong with giving something back to a society that has supported me to get where I am, today?
 
  • Like
Reactions: muichimotsu
Upvote 0

grasping the after wind

That's grasping after the wind
Jan 18, 2010
19,458
6,354
Clarence Center NY USA
✟237,637.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
idk what you're missing, but you might want to go back and look at the OT rules regarding gleaning of the fields, think about how that compares to a modern welfare system, and then try to see how that jives with your claim that one man being entitled to the fruits of another would cause society to cease its forward progress.

It is not a good comparison at all. The poor had to work to glean the fields. The fields were not gleaned for them by the owner of the field and delivered to them. A welfare system based upon the gleaning of the fields would require the recipient of welfare to work for their welfare benefits. Can anyone tell me why our government does not want that to be the case? Wouldn't it give the recipient a sense of accomplishment that is currently denied to them? Wouldn't it give them more of a sense of ownership rather than being left with a sense of being a burden upon society. Then no one could claim they were not contributing to society. wouldn't we be able to increase their benefits by doing so as we could rid ourselves of numerous bureaucrats and pay out less to private firms to do the jobs we could have them doing? Instead of being wards of the state they would be paid employees of the state and no one could begrudge them what they received for the work they did.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hank77
Upvote 0

grasping the after wind

That's grasping after the wind
Jan 18, 2010
19,458
6,354
Clarence Center NY USA
✟237,637.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
I believe we are obliged to take care of those around us. You are looking at it the wrong way. You are only considering what you are losing instead of what you could be giving.

I think that's a bad attitude to have towards money in cases of charity.

0a95343242a52d241a862ca31d5c0fb2.jpg

How does being forcibly made to contribute to the welfare of another person in any way equivalent to brotherly love( charity) ? You are accusing someone of having a bad attitude toward apples when he says he doesn't like oranges.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Avid
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

grasping the after wind

That's grasping after the wind
Jan 18, 2010
19,458
6,354
Clarence Center NY USA
✟237,637.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
What you are missing is that the equation is not [effort in] equals [economic status].

[effort in]+[luck]equals[economic status].

Luck is a huge force multiplier in this case.

Such progressive methods such as taxing the rich reduce the effects of luck.

I was able to go to uni only because my government put up the money in the form of grant.

Now I pay a slightly higher tax rate because of my income and the size of my house.

What is so wrong with giving something back to a society that has supported me to get where I am, today?

Luck is the excuse of the incompetent.
 
Upvote 0

ebia

Senior Contributor
Jul 6, 2004
41,711
2,142
A very long way away. Sometimes even further.
✟54,775.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Politics
AU-Greens
Upvote 0

ebia

Senior Contributor
Jul 6, 2004
41,711
2,142
A very long way away. Sometimes even further.
✟54,775.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Politics
AU-Greens
It is not a good comparison at all. The poor had to work to glean the fields. The fields were not gleaned for them by the owner of the field and delivered to them. A welfare system based upon the gleaning of the fields would require the recipient of welfare to work for their welfare benefits. Can anyone tell me why our government does not want that to be the case? Wouldn't it give the recipient a sense of accomplishment that is currently denied to them? Wouldn't it give them more of a sense of ownership rather than being left with a sense of being a burden upon society. Then no one could claim they were not contributing to society. wouldn't we be able to increase their benefits by doing so as we could rid ourselves of numerous bureaucrats and pay out less to private firms to do the jobs we could have them doing? Instead of being wards of the state they would be paid employees of the state and no one could begrudge them what they received for the work they did.
No. Work-for-the-dole schemes have been tried.

They end up making people resentful, make it harder to get back into real employment, and undermine real jobs.

But that's what it's really about? You being jealous that somebody gets something?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Innsmuthbride
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

NotreDame

Domer
Supporter
Jan 24, 2008
9,563
2,493
6 hours south of the Golden Dome of the University
✟505,933.00
Country
United States
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
I believe we are obliged to take care of those around us. You are looking at it the wrong way. You are only considering what you are losing instead of what you could be giving.

I think that's a bad attitude to have towards money in cases of charity.

0a95343242a52d241a862ca31d5c0fb2.jpg

This is perhaps a commendable belief but your mere belief really isn't sufficient to mandate another individual take care of another individual.
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.