Well, to be fair, it wasn't a question of a "world view" as it was saying, using as many of your words as possible, "There is a shockingly large number of people who are a burden to their neighbors and will fight to keep that status." While some people may not like calling attention to it, I doubt even ardent Obama supports would deny that it's the case. They would instead make a case that there are also those who only begrudgingly live off the efforts of their neighbors and will seek to quickly rise above that. At least, that's the argument that's been made in the past to persuade people--often with a head as soft as their heart--that we must act as dutifully selfless lifeguards, accepting those who are content to pull us under as long as our body can be used as a floatation device and allowing them to continue doing so, in order to make sure we don't ignore the flailing of those who just need a lifeline back to the ship they were already in the process of building before being tossed overboard in rough seas. This would be backed up by his concluding that, "I'll never convince them that they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives."The Cid wrote:This is dangerous thinking. Basically, "everybody who does not share my world view is a burden on our society."
By the way, it's interesting to me how so far in the discussion everyone seems to have given "the elderly" a pass, taking for granted that if you're 65 you have reached the point where you're now rightfully society's burden, that you're now entitled to live off your neighbors because you don't feel like working anymore and haven't saved to buy you that privilege. In many other cultures, if you've done a bad job at saving or otherwise managing your money, or maybe what you've settled for doing for income isn't enough to let you live how you want and save for the future, then you either continue to work or your family supports you. Then again we've suffocated the idea of a family and exalted the individual to the point where "community" is only a euphemisms for "lobbyist group with positive feel-good press" and "family" only matters when it comes to loyalty in social disagreements.
The problem is that even if everyone did agree on those things, they're so generic they're unhelpful, as there's a massive spectrum of ideas as to what is an entitlement/right, what is a privilege, and who should be responsible for providing those, either way. If you're going to get to common ground, it can't be something like "puppies are cute" but rather "The individual has an inherent responsibility to work within reasonable legal boundaries to provide as best as he can for himself and his family." But agreeing to something so fundamental remains elusive, as people are always thinking a step ahead and don't want to risk agreeing to something that could potentially slow down the gravy train of Other People's Make-believe Money, whether in the form of welfare or bailouts.Arres wrote:Everyone agrees that access to health care services is a good thing.
Everyone agrees that children should be taught things.
Everyone agrees that our country should not be massively in debt.