Friday, 29 May 2009

“Entitlements” and moral inversion

There was one word I kept hearing over and over yesterday.  That word was “entitlement” or, occasionally in the plural, “entitlements” – as in “I’m not going to cut people’s entitlements, but I’m sure as shooting not going to cut people’s taxes either.”

“Entitlements”?  Really?  Is that the most accurate way to describe hand-outs to moochers?  To describe largesse forcibly extracted from the taxpayer?  As an entitlement?

We have entered strange times. 

While the wealth of producers is stolen to pay for these handouts – while their property is considered fair game – the handouts themselves are now considered the property of the moochers. As somehow untouchable.

It is a strange and destructive moral inversion.


  1. Ain't that the truth.

    There is an interesting description of the welfare state transforming from being 'morality' based in the post war years (hence recipient numbers stayed low) into being 'rights-based' from the 60s (and numbers soared).

    Even libertarians would prefer the former to what we have now.

  2. Richard McGrath29 May 2009, 12:02:00

    As I think you have suggested in the past, Lindsay, the welfare state has undermined morality as such. Little wonder we appear to have a growing subculture of amoral sociopaths with a sneering hatred of productive people.

  3. Jim Donovan brought up the same issue regarding entitlements on his blog too :

    Government spending and a sense of entitlement


1. Commenters are welcome and invited.
2. All comments are moderated. Off-topic grandstanding, spam, and gibberish will be ignored. Tu quoque will be moderated.
3. Read the post before you comment. Challenge facts, but don't simply ignore them.
4. Use a name. If it's important enough to say, it's important enough to put a name to.
5. Above all: Act with honour. Say what you mean, and mean what you say.