3 ms·

I believe this is why OP brought up the birthright social contract. Given an absence of society, it’s fair to argue self-reliance, and that no one should have

I believe this is why OP brought up the birthright social contract. Given an absence of society, it’s fair to argue self-reliance, and that no one should have to carry another. However, being born into a society strips you of certain natural rights. You can’t just choose a nice place to build shelter for yourself - that’s “property” and it’s owned by someone already. You can’t hunt or farm your own food for similar reasons. Society demands, from birth, that you follow social laws that limit your own ability to be self-reliant. I believe it’s reasonable then when OP proposes that the balance of that social contract might mean that society should also provide a safety net for the basic necessities of life.

umvi 6y ago
Sure, I agree with that. However, I guess my point is: - If someone is reliant on the government for basic necessities of life, should they ideally work to reach a state where they can provide for themselves using their own income/skills/etc. and wean themselves off of government aid? - If the answer to the previous question is 'yes', how can we subsidize/incentive getting off of government aid? It seems to me that it's easy to get stuck in an inter-generational trench where the government provides your food, shelter, etc. I'm interested in how to help people help themselves.