Two cultures: Hunters and Gatherers vs Free Stuff

[Sallow]

Not a history student, huh? You would have gotten an F in class for that.

In Texas..maybe. But then again they scrub their history books.

Read a book, it'll do you wonders.

Physician..heal thyself..

 

[GuyPinestra]

Fifty or sixty years ago one of the strongest institutions in our society was organized labor,

and one of the most respected was our system of education.

The Right has done everything in its power since then to reverse that condition, and to the extent the Right has succeeded,

you can see the devastating results.

The right has destroyed education?? You're fucking delusional! It's the Left that has infiltrated and destroyed our education system, all you have to do is look at where all their political donations go to see the system is overrun by Leftists. Or have you never heard of the NEA?

 

[Foxfyre]

Ahem. While I support many of the sentiments expressed, I again respectfully request that we not turn this thread into still another USMB food fight gentlemen. Please. This thread is not about left and right but rather it is about American values and exceptionalism.

It is easy to point fingers and blame and accuse those on the left or right depending on our own adopted ideology. But that is being hashed out on dozens of other threads as we speak. Plenty of threads to trash this person or idolize that one.

I would like for us to return the focus to the cultural dynamics addressed in this thread, namely the growing trend in America that says we have a right for society to take care of us. The straw poll on the thread would suggest that most people reject that notion, but the posts I am reading on this thread suggest that half of you actually believe it.

Let's discuss the difference between social contract that shares certain government services such as fire and police departments versus receiving food stamps, EIC, and other subsidies.

Let's discuss whether we can sustain a system that uses the public treasury to pay people for being poor; and, if we cannot, what are we willing to do about that?

 

[The T]

Ahem. While I support many of the sentiments expressed, I again respectfully request that we not turn this thread into still another USMB food fight gentlemen. Please. This thread is not about left and right but rather it is about American values and exceptionalism.

It is easy to point fingers and blame and accuse those on the left or right depending on our own adopted ideology. But that is being hashed out on dozens of other threads as we speak. Plenty of threads to trash this person or idolize that one.

I would like for us to return the focus to the cultural dynamics addressed in this thread, namely the growing trend in America that says we have a right for society to take care of us. The straw poll on the thread would suggest that most people reject that notion, but the posts I am reading on this thread suggest that half of you actually believe it.

Let's discuss the difference between social contract that shares certain government services such as fire and police departments versus receiving food stamps, EIC, and other subsidies.

Let's discuss whether we can sustain a system that uses the public treasury to pay people for being poor; and, if we cannot, what are we willing to do about that?

 

[DiamondDave]

Libertarians look at the Constitution as some type of cookbook detailing the recipes and ingredients that future generations are allowed to use

The Constitution provides a broad framework of how our government should be structured. It provides a kitchen from which future generations can decide what they want to cook.

Correct.

It can also be said that libertarians look at the Constitution as some sort of static ‘blueprint for government,’ rather than what it actually is: a legal document, subject to judicial review. True, an aspect of the Constitution addresses the mechanics of government, but its primary function is to express a legal philosophy.

The error libertarians make with the ‘blueprint’ metaphor is believing any deviation from the ‘plan’ is forbidden, when in fact the Framers intended the Founding Document to be subject to interpretation.

As Justice Kennedy correctly observed in Lawrence:

Had those who drew and ratified the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth Amendment or the Fourteenth Amendment known the components of liberty in its manifold possibilities, they might have been more specific. They did not presume to have this insight. They knew times can blind us to certain truths and later generations can see that laws once thought necessary and proper in fact serve only to oppress. As the Constitution endures, persons in every generation can invoke its principles in their own search for greater freedom.

Pardon me? The Constitution is subject to judcial review? WTF? No it isn't. The Supreme Court reviews other laws against the supreme law of the land......the Constitution.....to determine if they are Constitutional or not. Now you see why we fear having progressives in power. They don't know jackshit and make it up as they go. The Costitution can be amended thru a process, but no court has the power to "review" it.

I have asked these morons over and over and over again to simply point out the alleged power granted to the SC by the constitution for judicial review or legislation thru the court.. they all cower away

 

[Foxfyre]

Good citizenship doesn't apply to some.

Which brings us - I hope - back to the topic.

Referring back to the Forbes article I posted, and reinforced by the link G inadvertently posted, prior to the New Deal, life was difficult for many people. In the social transitions of the industrial revolution, life was difficult for people everywhere in the developing world. But here in the USA, contrary to what the left would have us believe, people had numerous social services to draw from including their family, their churches, their friends and neighbors, and a myriad of other private social services. There was not widespread starvation and no more unsheltered homeless then than we have now.

So people were rather surprised at FDR's New Deal. The government had never helped them in hard times before. And the help was appreciated but there was a significant difference in that help and what we now have. Those were proud people still conditioned to believe that you give in order to get, that you earn what you receive, and you owe an obligation to those who help you out. The New Deal didn't just hand out free stuff. It provided a means for people to borrow money they were expected to repay, to buy stuff at a lower cost, to work for wages at a government job. Nobody expected to receive anything for free with no obligation or requirement to pay it back. Nobody thought the rich should be obligated by law to provide for the poor.

Contrast that now with one segment of America that now expects to be provided with what they don't have. That expects a lot of free stuff from the government. And who are clamoring for the government to take more from the rich in order to provide more free stuff for everybody else.

Does anybody think that is a healthy thing for the American society?

NOTE: This is NOT about what government programs have been good or bad. This is about a person thinking they are entitled to what somebody else earned.

This is amazingly bereft of any historical context. People weren't "surprised" by FDR's new deal..they were assuaged by it. Prior to that the US was prospering as a nation..only the wealth had become extremely concentrated. And, gosh darn it, for some reason the very wealthy weren't inclined to "share" despite the FACT they got most of their wealth on the backs of the very people they were plucking it from. This led to massive unrest, which the government had to become involved in. The US was well on it's way to a popular uprising..and historically? Those things never really turn out so well.

So FDR..as a matter of keeping the country from going full bore commie or some other nasty populist movement..went with giving out some candy for the masses.

And it was wildly successful.

I will disagree. People did NOT expect help from the government prior to FDR's "New Deal" programs. Nor did they expect something for nothing even then. People did not expect government 'candy' but the out of work were more than happy to accept paying jobs provided by the government, however temporary. There was absolutely no concept of those jobs being anything other than a temporary stop gap measure.

Driving through Kansas last week, I noted that some of the legacy of the public works programs are still there. . . .densely planted wind rows for soil conservation; numerous farm ponds constructed for water conservation etc., all done back during FDR's works program.

It is THAT I wish to address. The pride Americans had in earning their pay and not accepting 'charity' if they didn't have to. The idea that it is wrong to take from others without obligation to repay or without giving fair value for what you receive. The idea of character, a sense of self worth, and grown ups work and pay for what they get. How healthy is it for the individual and society as a whole for people to embrace such values?

How much do we damage a society by encouraging a sense of entitlement and 'the world owes me' mentality?

 

[bripat9643]

Correct.

Wrong.

It can also be said that libertarians look at the Constitution as some sort of static ‘blueprint for government,’ rather than what it actually is: a legal document, subject to judicial review. True, an aspect of the Constitution addresses the mechanics of government, but its primary function is to express a legal philosophy.

I've never heard of a legal document created to "express a legal philosophy." Can you name one? The terms in every legal document I've ever heard of are intended to be obyed explicity. If one party to a contract is allowed to "interpret" the terms accoring to some "philosophy" then the document is virtually worthless. How do you suppose the bank woul feel if you decided to "interpret" the terms of your mortgage to mean you weren't really obligated to pay a certain amount every month?

Your claim is absurd. Of course, all claims by liberals about the Constitution are absurd. The Constitution outlaws liberalism, so liberals are pretty much forced to lie about what it says.

The error libertarians make with the ‘blueprint’ metaphor is believing any deviation from the ‘plan’ is forbidden, when in fact the Framers intended the Founding Document to be subject to interpretation.

You have it precisely backwards. The founders expected it to be followed to the letter.

As Justice Kennedy correctly observed in Lawrence:

Had those who drew and ratified the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth Amendment or the Fourteenth Amendment known the components of liberty in its manifold possibilities, they might have been more specific. They did not presume to have this insight. They knew times can blind us to certain truths and later generations can see that laws once thought necessary and proper in fact serve only to oppress. As the Constitution endures, persons in every generation can invoke its principles in their own search for greater freedom.

That proves absolutely nothing other than the fact that Kennedy is a moron. He's the turd who said the SC should look to foriegn law when it interprets the Constitution. That has to be one of the dumbest comments an SC justice has ever uttered.

 

[The T]

Which brings us - I hope - back to the topic.

Referring back to the Forbes article I posted, and reinforced by the link G inadvertently posted, prior to the New Deal, life was difficult for many people. In the social transitions of the industrial revolution, life was difficult for people everywhere in the developing world. But here in the USA, contrary to what the left would have us believe, people had numerous social services to draw from including their family, their churches, their friends and neighbors, and a myriad of other private social services. There was not widespread starvation and no more unsheltered homeless then than we have now.

So people were rather surprised at FDR's New Deal. The government had never helped them in hard times before. And the help was appreciated but there was a significant difference in that help and what we now have. Those were proud people still conditioned to believe that you give in order to get, that you earn what you receive, and you owe an obligation to those who help you out. The New Deal didn't just hand out free stuff. It provided a means for people to borrow money they were expected to repay, to buy stuff at a lower cost, to work for wages at a government job. Nobody expected to receive anything for free with no obligation or requirement to pay it back. Nobody thought the rich should be obligated by law to provide for the poor.

Contrast that now with one segment of America that now expects to be provided with what they don't have. That expects a lot of free stuff from the government. And who are clamoring for the government to take more from the rich in order to provide more free stuff for everybody else.

Does anybody think that is a healthy thing for the American society?

NOTE: This is NOT about what government programs have been good or bad. This is about a person thinking they are entitled to what somebody else earned.

This is amazingly bereft of any historical context. People weren't "surprised" by FDR's new deal..they were assuaged by it. Prior to that the US was prospering as a nation..only the wealth had become extremely concentrated. And, gosh darn it, for some reason the very wealthy weren't inclined to "share" despite the FACT they got most of their wealth on the backs of the very people they were plucking it from. This led to massive unrest, which the government had to become involved in. The US was well on it's way to a popular uprising..and historically? Those things never really turn out so well.

So FDR..as a matter of keeping the country from going full bore commie or some other nasty populist movement..went with giving out some candy for the masses.

And it was wildly successful.

I will disagree. People did NOT expect help from the government prior to FDR's "New Deal" programs. Nor did they expect something for nothing even then. People did not expect government 'candy' but the out of work were more than happy to accept paying jobs provided by the government, however temporary. There was absolutely no concept of those jobs being anything other than a temporary stop gap measure.

Driving through Kansas last week, I noted that some of the legacy of the public works programs are still there. . . .densely planted wind rows for soil conservation; numerous farm ponds constructed for water conservation etc., all done back during FDR's works program.

It is THAT I wish to address. The pride Americans had in earning their pay and not accepting 'charity' if they didn't have to. The idea that it is wrong to take from others without obligation to repay or without giving fair value for what you receive. The idea of character, a sense of self worth, and grown ups work and pay for what they get. How healthy is it for the individual and society as a whole for people to embrace such values?

How much do we damage a society by encouraging a sense of entitlement and 'the world owes me' mentality?

It is better for government to stay out of our way and stop treating people as children.

 

[Foxfyre]

Correct.

Wrong.

It can also be said that libertarians look at the Constitution as some sort of static ‘blueprint for government,’ rather than what it actually is: a legal document, subject to judicial review. True, an aspect of the Constitution addresses the mechanics of government, but its primary function is to express a legal philosophy.

I've never heard of a legal document created to "express a legal philosophy." Can you name one? The terms in every legal document I've ever heard of are intended to be obyed explicity. If one party to a contract is allowed to "interpret" the terms accoring to some "philosophy" then the document is virtually worthless. How do you suppose the bank woul feel if you decided to "interpret" the terms of your mortgage to mean you weren't really obligated to pay a certain amount every month?

Your claim is absurd. Of course, all claims by liberals about the Constitution are absurd. The Constitution outlaws liberalism, so liberals are pretty much forced to lie about what it says.

The error libertarians make with the ‘blueprint’ metaphor is believing any deviation from the ‘plan’ is forbidden, when in fact the Framers intended the Founding Document to be subject to interpretation.

You have it precisely backwards. The founders expected it to be followed to the letter.

As Justice Kennedy correctly observed in Lawrence:

Had those who drew and ratified the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth Amendment or the Fourteenth Amendment known the components of liberty in its manifold possibilities, they might have been more specific. They did not presume to have this insight. They knew times can blind us to certain truths and later generations can see that laws once thought necessary and proper in fact serve only to oppress. As the Constitution endures, persons in every generation can invoke its principles in their own search for greater freedom.

That proves absolutely nothing other than the fact that Kennedy is a moron. He's the turd who said the SC should look to foriegn law when it interprets the Constitution. That has to be one of the dumbest comments an SC justice has ever uttered.

Again pulling the thread back on topic--there are other threads to discuss the role of the Supreme Court--let's leave all legalities out of it for the moment and focus on propriety, ethics, character, and principle, however alien such concepts may be to some.

Apart from gifts given voluntarily to us, can a society be a successful society in which every person does not feel an obligation to earn what he or she receives?

 

[The T]

Good citizenship doesn't apply to some.

Which brings us - I hope - back to the topic.

Referring back to the Forbes article I posted, and reinforced by the link G inadvertently posted, prior to the New Deal, life was difficult for many people. In the social transitions of the industrial revolution, life was difficult for people everywhere in the developing world. But here in the USA, contrary to what the left would have us believe, people had numerous social services to draw from including their family, their churches, their friends and neighbors, and a myriad of other private social services. There was not widespread starvation and no more unsheltered homeless then than we have now.

So people were rather surprised at FDR's New Deal. The government had never helped them in hard times before. And the help was appreciated but there was a significant difference in that help and what we now have. Those were proud people still conditioned to believe that you give in order to get, that you earn what you receive, and you owe an obligation to those who help you out. The New Deal didn't just hand out free stuff. It provided a means for people to borrow money they were expected to repay, to buy stuff at a lower cost, to work for wages at a government job. Nobody expected to receive anything for free with no obligation or requirement to pay it back. Nobody thought the rich should be obligated by law to provide for the poor.

Contrast that now with one segment of America that now expects to be provided with what they don't have. That expects a lot of free stuff from the government. And who are clamoring for the government to take more from the rich in order to provide more free stuff for everybody else.

Does anybody think that is a healthy thing for the American society?

NOTE: This is NOT about what government programs have been good or bad. This is about a person thinking they are entitled to what somebody else earned.

This is amazingly bereft of any historical context. People weren't "surprised" by FDR's new deal..they were assuaged by it. Prior to that the US was prospering as a nation..only the wealth had become extremely concentrated. And, gosh darn it, for some reason the very wealthy weren't inclined to "share" despite the FACT they got most of their wealth on the backs of the very people they were plucking it from. This led to massive unrest, which the government had to become involved in. The US was well on it's way to a popular uprising..and historically? Those things never really turn out so well.

So FDR..as a matter of keeping the country from going full bore commie or some other nasty populist movement..went with giving out some candy for the masses.

And it was wildly successful.

Government worked fine as did the people until the progressives got hold of it. Historical context? Really?

 

[GuyPinestra]

Again pulling the thread back on topic--there are other threads to discuss the role of the Supreme Court--let's leave all legalities out of it for the moment and focus on propriety, ethics, character, and principle, however alien such concepts may be to some.

Apart from gifts given voluntarily to us, can a society be a successful society in which every person does not feel an obligation to earn what he or she receives?

No, it's never been done and can never BE done. Society goes broke trying, from the Roman Empire through today.

 

[Foxfyre]

Again pulling the thread back on topic--there are other threads to discuss the role of the Supreme Court--let's leave all legalities out of it for the moment and focus on propriety, ethics, character, and principle, however alien such concepts may be to some.

Apart from gifts given voluntarily to us, can a society be a successful society in which every person does not feel an obligation to earn what he or she receives?

No, it's never been done and can never BE done. Society goes broke trying, from the Roman Empire through today.

And yet though more stagnant and offering somewhat less opportunity than has an American free market system, the German economy is Europe's largest and one of the most stable despite providing public social services to certain segments of its society. It does look to private services much more than do numerous other European countries, however.

What argument can we make that the Founders were right that the federal government cannot provide chairty or benevolence or relief of any kind without taking away unalienable personal liberties that the Constitution was designed to recognize, protect, and defend?

 

[kwc57]

In Texas..maybe. But then again they scrub their history books.

Read a book, it'll do you wonders.

Physician..heal thyself..

Yet I'm not the one making shit up out of whole cloth like you, sooooo...............

 

[Sallow]

Which brings us - I hope - back to the topic.

Referring back to the Forbes article I posted, and reinforced by the link G inadvertently posted, prior to the New Deal, life was difficult for many people. In the social transitions of the industrial revolution, life was difficult for people everywhere in the developing world. But here in the USA, contrary to what the left would have us believe, people had numerous social services to draw from including their family, their churches, their friends and neighbors, and a myriad of other private social services. There was not widespread starvation and no more unsheltered homeless then than we have now.

So people were rather surprised at FDR's New Deal. The government had never helped them in hard times before. And the help was appreciated but there was a significant difference in that help and what we now have. Those were proud people still conditioned to believe that you give in order to get, that you earn what you receive, and you owe an obligation to those who help you out. The New Deal didn't just hand out free stuff. It provided a means for people to borrow money they were expected to repay, to buy stuff at a lower cost, to work for wages at a government job. Nobody expected to receive anything for free with no obligation or requirement to pay it back. Nobody thought the rich should be obligated by law to provide for the poor.

Contrast that now with one segment of America that now expects to be provided with what they don't have. That expects a lot of free stuff from the government. And who are clamoring for the government to take more from the rich in order to provide more free stuff for everybody else.

Does anybody think that is a healthy thing for the American society?

NOTE: This is NOT about what government programs have been good or bad. This is about a person thinking they are entitled to what somebody else earned.

This is amazingly bereft of any historical context. People weren't "surprised" by FDR's new deal..they were assuaged by it. Prior to that the US was prospering as a nation..only the wealth had become extremely concentrated. And, gosh darn it, for some reason the very wealthy weren't inclined to "share" despite the FACT they got most of their wealth on the backs of the very people they were plucking it from. This led to massive unrest, which the government had to become involved in. The US was well on it's way to a popular uprising..and historically? Those things never really turn out so well.

So FDR..as a matter of keeping the country from going full bore commie or some other nasty populist movement..went with giving out some candy for the masses.

And it was wildly successful.

I will disagree. People did NOT expect help from the government prior to FDR's "New Deal" programs. Nor did they expect something for nothing even then. People did not expect government 'candy' but the out of work were more than happy to accept paying jobs provided by the government, however temporary. There was absolutely no concept of those jobs being anything other than a temporary stop gap measure.

Driving through Kansas last week, I noted that some of the legacy of the public works programs are still there. . . .densely planted wind rows for soil conservation; numerous farm ponds constructed for water conservation etc., all done back during FDR's works program.

It is THAT I wish to address. The pride Americans had in earning their pay and not accepting 'charity' if they didn't have to. The idea that it is wrong to take from others without obligation to repay or without giving fair value for what you receive. The idea of character, a sense of self worth, and grown ups work and pay for what they get. How healthy is it for the individual and society as a whole for people to embrace such values?

How much do we damage a society by encouraging a sense of entitlement and 'the world owes me' mentality?

You can "disagree" all you want. Your argument is flawed. And your knowledge of history is remarkably limited.

Coal Strike of 1902 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Battle of Matewan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Bonus Army - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That should steer you in the right direction.

 

[Foxfyre]

This is amazingly bereft of any historical context. People weren't "surprised" by FDR's new deal..they were assuaged by it. Prior to that the US was prospering as a nation..only the wealth had become extremely concentrated. And, gosh darn it, for some reason the very wealthy weren't inclined to "share" despite the FACT they got most of their wealth on the backs of the very people they were plucking it from. This led to massive unrest, which the government had to become involved in. The US was well on it's way to a popular uprising..and historically? Those things never really turn out so well.

So FDR..as a matter of keeping the country from going full bore commie or some other nasty populist movement..went with giving out some candy for the masses.

And it was wildly successful.

I will disagree. People did NOT expect help from the government prior to FDR's "New Deal" programs. Nor did they expect something for nothing even then. People did not expect government 'candy' but the out of work were more than happy to accept paying jobs provided by the government, however temporary. There was absolutely no concept of those jobs being anything other than a temporary stop gap measure.

Driving through Kansas last week, I noted that some of the legacy of the public works programs are still there. . . .densely planted wind rows for soil conservation; numerous farm ponds constructed for water conservation etc., all done back during FDR's works program.

It is THAT I wish to address. The pride Americans had in earning their pay and not accepting 'charity' if they didn't have to. The idea that it is wrong to take from others without obligation to repay or without giving fair value for what you receive. The idea of character, a sense of self worth, and grown ups work and pay for what they get. How healthy is it for the individual and society as a whole for people to embrace such values?

How much do we damage a society by encouraging a sense of entitlement and 'the world owes me' mentality?

You can "disagree" all you want. Your argument is flawed. And your knowledge of history is remarkably limited.

Coal Strike of 1902 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Battle of Matewan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Bonus Army - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That should steer you in the right direction.

Well my education in history may be lacking despite considerable university studies in that subject and a lot of independent study since. So you'll just have to live with my inadequacies.

Now what can we do to help you relate to the topic of this thread which none of the links that you furnished do?

 

[Sallow]

Read a book, it'll do you wonders.

Physician..heal thyself..

Yet I'm not the one making shit up out of whole cloth like you, sooooo...............

Making what shit up?

You guys are hilarious..seriously. You've got people like Michelle Bachmann that say things like the founders worked tirelessly to end slavery..

It really doesn't come as a surprise that you guys are so terrible at history.

 

[kwc57]

Physician..heal thyself..

Yet I'm not the one making shit up out of whole cloth like you, sooooo...............

Making what shit up?

You guys are hilarious..seriously. You've got people like Michelle Bachmann that say things like the founders worked tirelessly to end slavery..

It really doesn't come as a surprise that you guys are so terrible at history.

And yet you believe that FDR ended the depression and created the middle class.

 

[Sallow]

I will disagree. People did NOT expect help from the government prior to FDR's "New Deal" programs. Nor did they expect something for nothing even then. People did not expect government 'candy' but the out of work were more than happy to accept paying jobs provided by the government, however temporary. There was absolutely no concept of those jobs being anything other than a temporary stop gap measure.

Driving through Kansas last week, I noted that some of the legacy of the public works programs are still there. . . .densely planted wind rows for soil conservation; numerous farm ponds constructed for water conservation etc., all done back during FDR's works program.

It is THAT I wish to address. The pride Americans had in earning their pay and not accepting 'charity' if they didn't have to. The idea that it is wrong to take from others without obligation to repay or without giving fair value for what you receive. The idea of character, a sense of self worth, and grown ups work and pay for what they get. How healthy is it for the individual and society as a whole for people to embrace such values?

How much do we damage a society by encouraging a sense of entitlement and 'the world owes me' mentality?

You can "disagree" all you want. Your argument is flawed. And your knowledge of history is remarkably limited.

Coal Strike of 1902 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Battle of Matewan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Bonus Army - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That should steer you in the right direction.

Well my education in history may be lacking despite considerable university studies in that subject and a lot of independent study since. So you'll just have to live with my inadequacies.

Now what can we do to help you relate to the topic of this thread which none of the links that you furnished do?

The links buttress the point I made.

You, on the other hand, engage in this nonsense about "People getting free stuff".

It's hyperbole..at best.

 

[Sallow]

Yet I'm not the one making shit up out of whole cloth like you, sooooo...............

Making what shit up?

You guys are hilarious..seriously. You've got people like Michelle Bachmann that say things like the founders worked tirelessly to end slavery..

It really doesn't come as a surprise that you guys are so terrible at history.

And yet you believe that FDR ended the depression and created the middle class.

Yeah..that's right.

His policies ended the depression and created the middle class.

 

[Foxfyre]

You can "disagree" all you want. Your argument is flawed. And your knowledge of history is remarkably limited.

Coal Strike of 1902 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Battle of Matewan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Bonus Army - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That should steer you in the right direction.

Well my education in history may be lacking despite considerable university studies in that subject and a lot of independent study since. So you'll just have to live with my inadequacies.

Now what can we do to help you relate to the topic of this thread which none of the links that you furnished do?

The links buttress the point I made.

You, on the other hand, engage in this nonsense about "People getting free stuff".

It's hyperbole..at best.

Then don't post on the thread if you think it is hyperbole at best. There are numerous other threads in which you can discuss the role of the unions and government internvention into various things.

This thread is about people who expect free stuff vs those who believe people should work for or pay for what they get.

Is that a concept too difficult for you? If so, hope to see you around on other threads.