Entitlements - what's so bad about them?

The flaw here is that many, many people without jobs want jobs but there are none.In the UK today there are many, many well educated graduates looking for work but as of the down turn in the economy there are no jobs.I may have missed something but you point seems to rely on there being a choice of whether to work or going on the dole.

But is is already 'kicked in'. Those wealth creators create wealth for themselves. When a corporation takes a down turn and the company is streamlined is it the Board of Directors who get the sack?No. It's a swathe of workers at the coal face. This is why the financial elite get richer even an economic down turn.

This is so true. My friend was telling me about how almost every one in his department was sacked and their role was out sourced to India because wages much lower, there.The corporation (a so called wealth creator) only considers the bottom line insofar keeping the share holders and the board happy by making as much profit anyway it can.It's not a social wealth creator it is a select in group wealth creator from the sweat of another man's brow.

I would be interested to see you support your assertion that America has the highest standard of living for it's poorest.What you have missed is that as soon a one person starts employing anyone that employer immediate retards the ability of any one else to employ people. If a car washer sets up shop and employs another person (at a lower wage than himself) he is litterally denying another person the opportunity to bootstrap himself in the same way.By this logic as soon as you employ anybody you reduce their ability to 'go it alone' and reach for the American dream.This leads us to the point where the original car washer employes so many people that he no longer needs to actually do any work. He has distracted any competition by employing those who would be his potential competitors.Economic bullying by any other name. In a fair society people would only benefit from what they themselves could bring to the table: not what other people do for them.Think about Bill Gates: in incredibly rich chap. But does what he does today in terms of effort and time stack up against a fireman or nurse? Of course not.He get paid the amount he does for something he did in the past. As do the children of the mega rich. Think about that for a second: they get a living because of something their ancestors did. As an Englishman that has startling similarities to our Royal families.Are you saying that a capitalist society that generates effective financial royalty after a generation of two at the expense of the working classes is a good this and these scions are entitled to that wealth?

Just going from first principles I would suggest that in general the very religious would be more authoritarian than liberals.Science makes takes no dogmatic authority with it findings. These finding are always open to dispute a revision. The is no authority, only evidence.A theist (such as fundamentalist xainity) gets their evidence from the God via the bible. As right conservatives generally support right wing authoritarianism that fits nicely with the Bible (the social conformity bit) I can see how in general liberals go for science and the more authoritarian go for Jesus.Hope that helps.

We used to have loads of strikes in the 70s and early 80s. With a too left wing government the unions got out of hand.But today we rarely have country wide strikes but IT jobs still get outsourced out of the country taking money out of the economy while still lining the pockets of the board of directors.