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.”

Every other kind of animal has to find its own food and make its own living; why do you think humans should be different? Rabbits don't kill themselves because nobody will give them a lifelong supply of alfalfa for nothing. Why should you?

And, why do you believe that nature itself should dictate our morality and our actions.




It is God and his son, our lord and savior Jesus Christ who put us over nature. We as mankind are stewards and we rule nature. We have been assigned as being above nature, not in submission to it.

It is Jesus Christ who was the son of God and who was God who was asked and he responded with:



In other words, if a person can't work it is the community who is obligated to care for him. And, if he can be made whole to where he can work then the community is to make this so. He is owed these things because it is God himself, creator and lord of the Heavens above and Earth below who granted the entitlement to the poor, the down trodden, the sick, the naked, the hungry, and the imprisoned.

We are to be better then nature. How can we be stewards and have dominion of nature if we must submit to nature's whims? How can we truthfully obey God and all of his commandments in their entirely if we must submit to nature and its whims? Does God not call out to us only to serve one master and not two? Can we be loyal to both God and nature at the same time?

I think that everyone should be provided the basics, which is a place to live, food to eat and medical care when needed, if they can't get those things on their own. The key word here is "can't", of course; someone who could work but doesn't want to shouldn't get anything in my opinion. As for why things should be like this, all reasoning I have is that it sounds like the right thing to do to my personal morals.

Those who want more of their lives than just basics can get them, but those need to be bought with one's own money. I think that it could be fine if those who can't work got a little money for some extra, like a hobby or something, but only after it's made sure that there's enough money for the basic needs of everyone who can't work.

And naturally, I think this contains providing for those who can work and are actively looking for a job but don't have one yet. It just wouldn't make any sense to pay the living of those who can't benefit the society, but make those who could when they get a chance to die of hunger if they can't find a job fast enough.

But we elected a leader who is looking to make money for himself. He needs cheap labor for his hospitality businesses. Basic economic theory says that keeping the supply of labor large allows wages to be kept low.

So ... by that logic, if low-wage workers want their wages increased, they should quarantine themselves during the CoViD-19 crisis, wait for half of their number to die out, and then sell their services to the highest bidders in the fast-food industry.

The libertarian response is *NO* you're never entitled to enslave other people to provide for you.

However, you can ask for CHARITY.

So correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems the following statements are inherent to this ideology:

• Exchanging one's labor for an agreed-upon wage is slavery.

• Any profit realized by the employer is stolen from the employees.

• A person's existence affirms his or her privilege of a non-transactional living wage.

Do I have it correct so far?

So, this topic is about ... ENTITLEMENT .. like UBI + free housing + free food

Cool Name and Avatar first of all!

Yes, but the topic is more then that. Supposedly a number of Conservative Christian and Libertarian types call our nation a Christian nation. As in, our nations constitution, laws and values are derived from the Bible in someway. The Bibles laws, tenets, commandments all come from Loving God with all your might and all your being and Love others as one would do oneself. And, part of that is being aware of all kinds of greed.

Yet, I don't see this from them. All I see is simply that the attitude is that greed is good, free enterprise this, free enterprise that, market, market forces, etc etc. Almost like an inordinate love of money over the love of God and the love of others.

Entitlement comes from the word to entitle. Entitle means to grant, give permission, to give authority of. God says a certain portion is to go to Ceasar. God wants another portion of our labors to go to him. He wants his portion to go to the poor, destitute, sick, impoverished, disabled etc. God has granted and set aside his portion to these unfortunate groups. Ceasar is expected to give his portion to God as well.

And, how can the USA call itself a Christian nation with the whole pull yourself by your bootstraps mentality? Truth is, it can't. This whole independence and inordinate love of money which capitalism, free enterprise, capitalism that reduces all of us to resources and commodities is ungodly. Capitalism as it is today makes mammon our master instead of God and our lord and savior Jesus Christ.

The poor has a right to these entitlements b/c it is God who is the maker and created and manufactured all. It is he who decides how things are to be. He laid things out through the Bible and through our lord Jesus Christ. It is God who allotted the portion he wants from our labors to the poor, destitute, sick, impoverished, disabled etc. Because God granted his portion to these groups and gave authority for these groups to have these entitlements then they have a right to these entitlements.

It is more of indentured servitude under these conditions:

If there are no other options outside of the whole free-enterprise, capitalistic model today other then living in a shack like the Unabomber. Think of Brave New World where capitalism, freedom and meaningless sex is the order of the day which was called Fordism and the island one can go to if one didn't agree the tenets of the system. I wish there was something like this for those who don't agree with and can't stand the system today and they can live in the way that is comfortable for them.



Any profit that is gained through deceitful and duplicitous means is stolen in my mind.



I think a living wage is an excellent idea and that's a topic for a different post.

It's not slavery if one can choose to leave society altogether. By the fact of being in society you implicitly signed a contract in which you agree to give up some of your fruit of labors for the betterment of others and to clothes the naked, feed the hungry, etc. This is a part of your social contract.

It's not slavery if you're not forced to be in a society who does this.

But how does one leave the society? Is there some other way besides moving to another society and serving that one instead or isolating oneself in some cabin in the woods?

Well, unless you can think of something else then no. Those are your choices but at least it's not the soviet union who built a wall to keep ppl in.

"He who does not work, neither shall he eat." 2 Thessalonians 3:10

"You wanna keep living under my roof after high school, you go out and get a job!" -- Dear Old Dad.

Not only did I get out from under his roof one week after graduation, but I went to college, earned a degree, and started a career!