I recall when I was growing up that there were several times that I received something that I hadn't worked or paid for (including Christmas presents), of which I didn't take proper care. What I received became subject to abuse and neglect. However, those things I had to work for or I had to pay hard-earned money for, I would take care of and they would last a long time.
The lesson I have learned from that is that I had a sense of ownership for those things that I obtained by the sweat of my own brow. I am not alone in this. Everyone who works for what they get has a sense of responsibility toward those possessions. On the other side of the coin there are those who don't have a sense of "ownership" or responsibility for what they receive.
If you take a good look at the "projects" (government subsidized housing), you will see in almost every situation, they have been abused and neglected and have become run down. This validates my position. They are living there free or almost free therefore, they have no sense of ownership and don't feel that they have a responsibility to care for where they live.
On a grander scale, we have people who are participating in activities like "Occupy Wall Street" all over the country. They have abused the generosity of their host cities, they have even engaged in degradation of the parks and other locations where they are staying. They have also engaged in illicit activities and have abused each other. They have no sense of responsibility for their surroundings, the country who has given them the freedom to engage in protests, or themselves. These groups are mainly made up of those who haven't had to work for a living yet. They are students and others who call themselves the 99%. It makes them sound as though they have an overwhelming majority and in one sense, they have. They are engaging in the largest "project greed" that I have seen in my lifetime. They want what the "haves" have earned but they don't want to put out the same effort to get it.
A majority of our politicians, including our current president, have picked-up on this and made this "something for nothing" attitude the center of their focus of pitting the have-nots against the haves. Expounding a philosophy of because the haves have more, then they should share more, and if they don't or won't then their excess should be taken from them and be given to the have-nots.
Where this really becomes unbearable is in the fact that those that govern have concocted a legal way to do it called the income tax. Since its inception, it has been a tool to drive a wedge between the different "classes" in this country. It follows the second point of how to overthrow a capitalist system given in the Communist Manifesto. It reads: “2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.”
This philosophy implies that those who have more should give all but, what they need to subsist to those who don't have as much thus making them equal. How long would be, under this philosophy, before those who are working to have more stop working because what they have gained "more" through their hard work gets taken from them and given to others.
This is the very thing that our government, especially under the current president, is doing. They tax the wealthy more, and propose to tax them even more. Then they redistribute this confiscated wealth to those who haven't worked to get it through welfare programs such as Medicaid, government housing, food stamps, free meals at school, etc.
This philosophy breaks down under the realization that, just as I abused the things I didn't have to work for when I was growing up, people in general show no respect for what they receive nor for the giver when they don't have to work for it. This is the reason for the condition of the government housing projects, the food fights in the school lunchrooms, the defecation on government vehicles during the Occupy Wall Street protests and the list goes on.
The realization that personal responsibility is the only thing that guarantees the unalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. If these things aren't worked for, then they are not unalienable. In essence, those who depend on the government for their support and well being become slaves to that government and lose their freedom to choose. They can only live where the government says they can live. They can only get medical care from where the government says they can and only the procedures approved by the government. They can only buy as much food as the government stamps buy. They can't earn more money than the government says they can otherwise they are cut off, yet it is not enough for them to live on without the government assistance.
