My Quaker friend, Al Anderson, in a number of books argues persuasively that, as people born in the USA, we have a birthright which entitles us to a share of the wealth of the country. This share is not something that we have to earn or work for; it is a condition of our birth. Al calculates that this American birthright is about $20,000 per person per year. He reasons that the wealth of this country should not belong to corporations, which are ficticious and not real people. The resources of this country belong to the people of this country as a condition of their birthright. The implications of this idea are rather obvious. We shouldn’t have to beg for universal health care, for example. We are entitled to it, without cost, because this is our country, and we own a share of its bountiful resources.
Couldn’t resist this one (though probably should have). What a load of rubbish!
Firstly, give £20,000 a year to people who don’t deserve it and haven’t earned it and they will consume large amounts of alcohol and intravenous drugs and buy many electrical goods that promise to improve their quality of life. Those who do work hard will feel resentful that the lazy get as much as them and become bitter and plot to overthrow the system, being smart and industrious they will succeed.
Secondly this whole idea sounds similar to the notion that we are owed a life, and that life should be fair. Who says so? Life is what you make of it and it’s never been fair and never will be so stop moaning and get over it.
There ends my somewhat unsympathetic reply to your Quaker friend’s literary output, I’ll get off my soap box and do some work, cause nobody owes me anything as long as I’ve done nothing.
I’m sure I’m misinterpreting what your saying, and I’m sorry. But this is how my brain is picking up on your post:
I haven’t read any of the books that your friend has written, so perhaps that might answer some of my questions. But until then maybe you can help me out. By “sharing in the bountiful resources” is he referring to things such as the crops that a farmer plants and harvests on the land that the farmer pays for with the sweat of his labors? If so, I presume that the farmer, too, would be entitled to share in some of the nation’s bountiful resources for his fair share of $20,000 per year. This would be a pretty decent guarantee for most farmers that I know, as that is typically about what many earn each year after working their keesters off. But many farmers have a wife and several children which would raise the family’s share of this bounty to $100,000 per year. Now, this would certainly slow down many farm foreclosures that have been epidemic for a number of years. But, what about the other side of the coin? What would happen to the incentive for this farmer to continue growing bumper crops? If national crop production dwindles because farmers see no reason to continue busting their keesters, then what happens to the food portion of our bountiful resources? It seems to me that the same scenario would play out with extracting and processing any of our resources. If no one is willing to do the work to bring the resources to market, then the resources aren’t worth anything and their is no wealth to share.
Will O’
Don’t laugh too loud. It’s an idea that’s being seriously considered here in the UK, and the figure is £50,000. That’s 50k, to be given to everyone on turning 21. Think I’m joking?
Who will process the resources into food, clothing, electrical goods etc., and the “universal health care” and not to mention the £20,000 of paper money for people to receive every year?
Corporations, whether privately or Government owned.
While I’m all for a fairer distribution of wealth and services in society, (especially if this means I get more), I think someone’s living in cloud cuckoo land.
Speaking of cuckoos, I remember from way back in the late 40s, a childhood story, about a chicken called Henny Penny, about planting wheat and wanting help with it. She ended up being the only one interested in doing it until the bread was baked, then everybody wanted to help in eating it.
Guess who ended up eating the bread (if you are unfamiliar with the tale)?!
Lots of truth in that old tale.
The Henny-Penny I remember was in cahoots with Turkey-lurkey and Cock-locky. Foxy-woxy yomped 'em all except Henny-Penny, who legged it without telling the king that the sky was falling. The stupid bint.
Weren’t that Chicken Little?
Oops, I had a senior moment…
Apparently both tales are about the same idea, both of these are sky falling chickens.
It was “The Little Red Hen” (thanks, google).
There once was a little red hen who lived on a farm. The hen’s friends were a little black dog, a big orange cat, and a little yellow goose. One day, the red hen found some grains of wheat. “I can make bread from this,” thought the red hen.
The little red hen asked, “Who will help me plant the wheat?”
“Not I,” said the little black dog.
“Not I,” said the big orange cat.
“Not I,” said the little yellow goose.
“Then I will do it myself,” said the little red hen. And she planted the wheat without any help at all.
The little red hen asked, “Who will help me cut the wheat?”
“Not I,” said the little black dog.
“Not I,” said the big orange cat.
“Not I,” said the little yellow goose.
“Then I will do it myself,” said the little red hen. And she cut the wheat without any help at all.
The tired little red hen asked, “Who will help me take the wheat to the mill and grind it into flour?”
“Not I,” said the little black dog.
“Not I,” said the big orange cat.
“Not I,” said the little yellow goose.
“Then I will do it myself,” said the tired little red hen. So she took the wheat to the mill and ground it into flour without any help at all.
The very, very tired little red hen asked, “Who will help me bake the bread?”
“Not I,” said the little black dog.
“Not I,” said the big orange cat.
“Not I,” said the little yellow goose.
“Then I will do it myself,” said the very, very tired little red hen. And she baked the bread without any help at all.
The hot, fresh bread smelled very good. The little red hen asked, “Now, who will help me eat this bread?”
“I will!” said the little black dog.
“I will!” said the big orange cat.
“I will!” said the little yellow goose.
“No, you won’t! I will do it myself!” yelled the little red hen. And she ate the bread without any help at all.
The End
Nah, that’s a Merkan cartoon character. The original English folk/fairy tale was Henny-Penny, with her mates Cocky-locky, Ducky-daddles, Goosey-poosey and Turkey-lurkey.
See, they had class distinction in them days too, all those double-barrelled hoity-toity farmyard toffs with their hyphens and going to see the king… Even the villain of the piece, Foxy-woxy, was upper-middle class. His first name was probably Nigel. Or Fontleroy.
No welfare state back then mate. If the sky was falling it was off to the Big Fromage with the shiny crown and the castle, who’d probably have done to Henny-Penny’s mates exactly what Foxy-woxy did, but not quite so literally. While yer working-class farmyard types with no hyphens were left to fend for themselves. Typical.
Oh no! 
I’ve been Merkanised. 
Resistance is futile…you will be assimilated. Your biological and technological distinctiveness will be added to our own.
I think it’s important to make certain distinctions here. While I would agree (to a certain extent) that the residents of ANY country have a certain right to the NATURAL resources of their country, I cannot agree that we all have a right to the LABOR resources. The resources that have been made by another man’s labor are not something that we have some kind of divine right to, especially if we had no hand in making or growing it. But also, with rights come responsibilities. I would agree that we all have a right to food, shelter, clothing etc. But if I am an able bodied person, I have an obligation to give back to my country as well by working, serving, whatever. These things must go hand in hand.
Now I know why there wasn’t a Badger featured in that fairy story.
Where is this money going to come from? Is the country spending enough already?
Maybe a tax free saving account for parents to get their children in college. And just so that people think that this is for the rich only, limit it to households that make less than $50K a year.
While I agree that corporations are not people, and are not entitled to the special treatment they currently get, each corporation is an abstraction of a large group of people. The money going to corporations don’t just disappear into black holes, they go to shareholders, and to exhorbitant CEO salaries, and eventually to the saleries of every worker in that corporation. I would agree that something has to be done to make the division of wealth among corporate workers a bit more equitable (e.g., a CEO should not get $300,000 bonuses after laying off 10% of his workforce). But I don’t think we should add to the feeling of entitlement that most Americans seem to have these days. People shouldn’t be discriminated against because of where they were born, and people equally aren’t entitled to other people’s hard work just because they were lucky enough to be born in the same country.
Hard question.
Somehow $20K handouts don’t seem like they’ll do as much for a lot of folks as better planned healthcare, etc.
Politically, I’m a nitwit, but this is my instinct.
“Bruce Ackerman at Yale Law School, would like to have
much higher inheritance taxes – and use the money to give each and
every citizen 80,000 dollars when they turn 21. Yes, that’s 80,000
dollars or 50,000 pounds. For everyone.”
See the transcript of the radio programme I posted above… it’s the blue link that says “Read the programme transcript”… oh buggrit, here it is again:
Read the programme transcript
It’s an interesting idea…
Christian Socialism, Christian Socialism…
Does that mean I get the money?