How would you define moochers?
How would you define moochers? This was a question recently put to Dr. David Kelley. Here was his answer...
I would define them as takers on any scale who regard taking as their right, or at least as a legitimate activity. The qualification is important.
In our current mixedeconomy, welfarestate society, all of us are de facto takers. When the government runs education, retirement, and most of health care—supported by taxes on our earnings—we have little choice but to send our kids to public schools, take Social Security and Medicare when we get old, and get healthcare through a system riddled with government controls. However, the real takers are those who claim a right to such benefits and lobby to increase them. Like AARP.
By the same token, a poor person who wants to make an honest living is prevented from doing so by local regulations that prevent him or her from driving a cab, braiding hair, and similar jobs. These people may be forced to rely on welfare as a result. They are moochers in fact but not in spirit, by contrast with those who claim a right to support.
At the other end of the spectrum, no business can avoid dealing with government controls and subsidies. Still, there’s a difference between those who aim to create goods or services and succeed through market competition, for whom the struggle to navigate the shoals of regulations and permissions is a sideline, and those for whom deals with politicians and bureaucrats are the essence of what they do. They are the crony capitalists—moochers on a par with the most irresponsible welfare mother.
- - - - -
Read the full Dr. David Kelley interview here: http://www.galtsgulchonline.com/posts/31...
- - - - -
I would define them as takers on any scale who regard taking as their right, or at least as a legitimate activity. The qualification is important.
In our current mixedeconomy, welfarestate society, all of us are de facto takers. When the government runs education, retirement, and most of health care—supported by taxes on our earnings—we have little choice but to send our kids to public schools, take Social Security and Medicare when we get old, and get healthcare through a system riddled with government controls. However, the real takers are those who claim a right to such benefits and lobby to increase them. Like AARP.
By the same token, a poor person who wants to make an honest living is prevented from doing so by local regulations that prevent him or her from driving a cab, braiding hair, and similar jobs. These people may be forced to rely on welfare as a result. They are moochers in fact but not in spirit, by contrast with those who claim a right to support.
At the other end of the spectrum, no business can avoid dealing with government controls and subsidies. Still, there’s a difference between those who aim to create goods or services and succeed through market competition, for whom the struggle to navigate the shoals of regulations and permissions is a sideline, and those for whom deals with politicians and bureaucrats are the essence of what they do. They are the crony capitalists—moochers on a par with the most irresponsible welfare mother.
- - - - -
Read the full Dr. David Kelley interview here: http://www.galtsgulchonline.com/posts/31...
- - - - -
Previous comments... You are currently on page 3.
More importantly moochers, like cockroaches, reproduce much faster and more frequently than producers. The reproduction of moochers does not require an entire generation, only a single choice to take what one has not rightfully earned, regardless of age.
We have had several discussions in the last few months about whether it is the proper role of an Objectivist to recruit others to Objectivism. The sad reality is that both looters and moochers do see that it is a requirement that they recruit other looters and moochers. That is why moochers outreproduce producers.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yfka9m6N...
Oh, and I only collect SS now because I got married to a wonderful woman and moved to Canada...their Immigration is as bad as ours, and I've been waiting for "permission" to work here for over 2 years. I just got it, and I'm looking for work now...when I get it, the SS stops...
[edited: added last content]
If you look at only the physical side of mooching we are all likely to become moochers at some point in our life. So much is stolen from us through our life that to truly live as a non-moocher would be next to impossible.
If you go to a state school in Utah 40% of your costs are paid for by taxes, and therefor you are a moocher. If you use public transit in the state 40+% of it is paid by taxes. If you send a kid to school and your neighbor has no child, you are a moocher.... I could go on with many more examples.
Capturing the jest and partially the wording of something Rand said, adjusted to multiple flavors:
The person who pays into social security with the plan to never use it is the only one with the right to use it.
The person who pays unemployment with the intent to never use it is the only person with the right to use it.
I was unemployed within my profession for over a year in this last recession. I picked pumpkins, cherries and delivered papers. Jobs that left me open to look for work I wanted and was able to do. I did these jobs and never claimed a dime of unemployment.
I would have made more on unemployment than I did at the odd jobs.I would have sold my right to call myself a producer as well because I had options that allowed me to not take the stolen money.
A moocher is someone who seeks the unearned reward of any kind and will not do all in his or her power to receive only that which they earned by agreement and by trade.
To clarify, a moocher is any man or woman who would seek an unearned reward at the cost of the effort of a man or woman other than themselves.
I take some issue with Social Security and Medicare being lumped in. I don't really consider SS and Medicare to be "entitlements" as those who benefit from the programs (at least in most cases) paid into them - in fact were FORCED to pay into them.
Actually I don't consider Veteran's benefits an "entitlement" either, but an agreement between the government and the military personnel. You fight for us ... we will take care of you.
In my mind, the fact that the government has done a poor job of managing its resources and administering these programs does not relieve them of the responsibility to meet its obligations.
I consider welfare and Medicaid to be the true "entitlements" - recipients (in many cases) feel that they are entitled to the benefits, with no contribution on their part.
I disagree with Rand in one respect...I cannot in conscience say that I will not live for another; I am in fact my brother's keeper. If someone is in dire straits, I will help to the best of my ability. What I will not subsidize voluntarily are the activities of those who repeatedly choose to be in dire straits. In other words, I will step up when the choice is left to me, and I do not characterize those whom I help choose to help as 'moochers'.
Edit: SP