Entitlements vs. Rights, Part 2

The desirability of a social net as a concept is not disputed.  Only the callous can ignore the survival needs of others.  Yet there have been socially destructive consequences of the social net in practice.  (I’m referring to welfare, not Social Security.)  The expression “sense of entitlement” is frequently heard.  We all know it exists.  People who seemingly believe that their mere existence entitles them to receive support from the government (aka taxpayers).  And we, as the broader society, enable that attitude.

Many view the poor as the victims of society or the economy.  Given that attitude, providing care for the downtrodden is a mandated responsibility which transforms a need into an entitlement.  Independently of a (uniformly liberal) victimization perspective, of course, there are people who legitimately need assistance to survive circumstances beyond their control.  Prior to the development of government welfare programs, aid was provided by community charities, churches, etc., neighbors and family members.  Because the assistance came from local sources, knowledge of the recipient was usually personal.  The undeserving were excluded.  And certainly those who did receive benefits did not relish the need to rely on the generosity of others.  Self-reliance had long been such a pronounced part of the American psyche, that the receipt of charity, while certainly appreciated by those in need, was an embarrassing event to be avoided. 

For those able to avoid that predicament, they had no choice but to make their own way in the world.  They had rights, indeed, to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness – but not to a handout.  But human nature will cause man to alter his behavior in accordance with changing circumstances.  It’s a safe assumption to say that we are inclined to take the path of least resistance.

So if a person is deficient in qualities of industriousness, and social inhibitions are minimal or nonexistent, would it be surprising if he sought desired assistance which was needed only because he lacked such a quality? 

Is it any wonder, in light of human nature, that aid for the less fortunate so often becomes a curse to the recipient’s character?

We as a society have long been too compassionate in the short term by making access to governmental aid too easy. 

Government aid, as distinct from private charity, is less personal and as such, a socially induced inhibition against seeking it is reduced.  In fact, there are occasional publicity campaigns encouraging people “in need” to apply!

To the extent society fosters a sense of entitlement, it detracts from the appeal of self-reliance and increases the portion of the citizenry dependent upon the government for support.
What can be done?

Liberals, obviously view government solutions as the first – not last – resort in addressing social problems.  Conservatives disagree.  We believe that people and private organizations (commercial and charitable) are where we start.

Take the food stamp program.  Why is it necessary?  Soup kitchens, food pantries and the like are abundant.  Is the justification for its existence that people will starve without it?

I have faith in the generous nature of Americans. If there is a need, we will rise to the occasion. And to the extent that government stops funding “welfare entitlements” with our money, we’ll have more money with which to be generous.