|
|
|
July 16, 2009
What we call "entitlements" are merely laws.
That's obvious, right? Speaking of "entitlements," just what is an entitlement? A right? Not at all. The "right" to collect social security derives from a law passed by Congress in 1935 and signed by the president. Same is true of Medicare (which simply amended the Social Security Act). Like any law, these laws can be repealed or changed at the whim of Congress. The United States Supreme court has specifically held that the Social Security Act does not create any contractual obligation on the part of the United States, and thus does not even rise to the level of any sort of right. It is not even analogous to an insurance contract: "To engraft upon the Social Security system a concept of 'accrued property rights' would deprive it of the flexibility and boldness in adjustment to ever changing conditions which it demands." The Court went on to say, "It is apparent that the non-contractual interest of an employee covered by the [Social Security] Act cannot be soundly analogized to that of the holder of an annuity, whose right to benefits is bottomed on his contractual premium payments."So why does everyone (except a few libertarian cranks) go on calling these things "entitlements"? To imply that they are rights when they are not? There is no right to have a law. There is no more right to receive social security than there was a right to Prohibition of alcohol (or drug laws). Laws can be changed, and I feel like I'm stating the obvious here. So why does it seem so non-obvious to so many people? posted by Eric on 07.16.09 at 08:35 PM
Comments
Whenever we must qualify the term right (as in "civil" right) we are in the midst of an obfuscation by which a legally mandated privilege is surreptitiously elevated to the level of actual rights, such as life, liberty and property. Brett · July 17, 2009 08:02 AM Because killing millions of the most helpless members of our society through lack of healthcare or income past working age is not an "obvious" policy solution to any decent person. Kevin T. Keith · July 17, 2009 10:01 AM Killing? Who said anything about that? All I said was what the government gives by laws, the government can stop or adjust with more laws. In any case, not paying for someone's health care no more constitutes "killing" than would not paying for his food. (I realize that political activists would probably argue that not giving someone food stamps is murder, but that does not make it so. Not even if you proclaim that "POVERTY IS VIOLENCE!") Since you brought up killing, the killing of certain people (in the form of euthanasia and infanticide performed to be on "the most helpless members of our society") is advocated by lefties like Peter Singer. (As to whether he's a decent person, that is logically irrelevant.) Eric Scheie · July 17, 2009 10:18 AM So why does it seem so non-obvious to so many people? Please see Kevin T. Keith's comment for an answer. I don't know if it answers the fundamental "Why?" of "how can you think that way", but more of the superficial "why?" of how some people respond to questions that seem to attack their worldview. If that makes any sense to anybody but me. Think of it as "stimulus/response". You asked a definitional question and that response attacked you personally for wanting to kill Teh Children while ignoring that the people on the side of more entitlements are not just for abortion, but enthusiastically so. Veeshir · July 17, 2009 02:32 PM Ooops, I didn't complete my "thought". It's not so much debate as a way to shut down debate. And it worked, you responded to its non-sequitur instead of discussing the point of the post. Veeshir · July 17, 2009 02:35 PM Post a comment
You may use basic HTML for formatting.
|
|
July 2009
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR
Search the Site
E-mail
Classics To Go
Archives
July 2009
June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 May 2002 AB 1634 MBAPBSAAGOP Skepticism See more archives here Old (Blogspot) archives
Recent Entries
• Trauma for women, humor for men?
Or is that sexist? • Racism In A Boxer • A Fair Shake? • Entitled to free menudo? • It Was 40 Years Ago Today • Health Care - Putting Patients In Charge • What we call "entitlements" are merely laws. That's obvious, right? • Human Rights • Planned economic mayhem? (Can't say we weren't warned....) • Why not ration the rationalizations of rationality?
Links
Site Credits
|
|
An "entitlement" is legal term of art which refers to a government handout available to *every single person* who meets the requirements. Thus any eligible person who turns up has to be paid, unless the law is changed. With other sorts of government handouts, they can stop handing out money once they run out of budgeted money.