-the editor

Entitlement

We are in trouble if we take a concept like entitlement, ( referring, I am assuming, to that privilege that someone may have and exercise at will if they feel they are permitted - whether it is legal or not,) and dissociate it from the notion of Virtue. Aristotle believed that virtue was necessary for social sanity. It suggests that a person has some control and knowledge of aspects like balance, proportion, feeling, tendencies, mental capabilities etc. Then, as well, we must recognize conditions. In a state of complete social chaos is it permissible for an oppressed person to feel entitled to anything he or she can get his or her hands on? In a social atmosphere of fear (perceived or real) are measures which compromise freedom acceptable in order to assuage that fear?

It is my belief that power carries with it a marked degree of entitlement. This being the case, a person would be wise, indeed shrewd, to take great care in regarding those to whom power is accorded. If, for instance, you live in a situation where guns are permitted to some under certain circumstances, and you are not one of the persons to whom guns are permitted, it would be to your great advantage to know what you must do to avoid getting shot. A person who has been granted an office or a role where power over other human beings is a given is going to recognize certain prerogatives which would look very much like entitlements. An Abbot for instance, knowing the motives and facts of a monk who has misbehaved can choose to translate the details of the situation to anyone he pleases, thus limiting even further the freedom and status of a monk. This may prove to be a mute issue for a monk, his life being one of trial and self denial anyway. But we mustn't at any rate leave him without a sense of self dignity, shall we?

The powerful are entitled. The poor, the powerless may feel entitlement in only the most personal and pedestrian affairs. A father will certainly presume to be entitled to discipline his children, will feel entitled to rule with some degree of authority in his own house, will be satisfied to determine the direction of his expenditures, etc. He will feel, I am only conjecturing at this point (given the modern scene...or are we post modern? ...when did we enter the post modern?) that he is entitled to a natural physical relationship with his spouse. And his spouse is justified in feeling the right to be secure in a home where she can raise her children sanely and avail herself to the necessities and a few luxuries one would presume of life in any given setting. No doubt, the entitlements of marriage do seem to some like prison bars under certain given states of domestic mayhem.

An entitlement is not a right, I take it. As the word suggests, there is the issue of "title". If a person has a title they are free, at least to the degree that has been assumed by the said title, to act in accordance with that title...which would presume that the title is given as a result of either common consent of an attainment of skill. A janitor is entitled to a lunch break. A Wall Street broker is entitled to a long three martini lunch and a nap and a dalliance with his friend's secretary and a phone call that gives him the day off if he so desires and a big old credit card and anything else he wants for lunch, I guess. That he is lacking in virtue is irrelevant. A policeman is entitled to carry a gun and use it in defense of himself or, more virtuously, in defense of his community. But he is not free to ram the barrel of his gun into the mouth of a drunken sophomore who is lipping-off to him. Or, I guess he is free to do that and will probably be slapped on the hand and then congratulated for upholding good American values. Yet, in my mind this would be a good example of a distorted concept of entitlement, would it not? To what extent can we argue against the cliché' principle...might makes right? Everything from bad parenting to national leadership has messed up the world using that presumption.

Now, we have invested some men and women with power over our society. We have, whether we voted for them or not, accepted that they have the freedom to make choices in matters of our security. The constitution entitles me the freedom to be critical of that. It does not entitle me with the power to counteract that by devious means. Even if I could imagine a way to do that (which I have). It is my firm conviction that we should rise up in mass rebellion against anyone who presumes to employ measures that will both compromise our freedom and further bring about a state containment which we could only call a police state. If our freedom requires the micromanagement from technocrats and businessmen, not to mention the intellectually suspect in our world, then we have an obligation to resist it. To resist them and their designs is the only freedom that matters at that point. The powerful will abuse power. This we know. But will the persons who are frightfully awake have the courage to embrace the basic values of human dignity? will they use the entitlement of being a human being and deny the forces of exaggerated effort? George Bernard Shaw once said of Americans...."they are imprisoned by their notions of freedom" A psychological therapist stated once..."You are entitled nothing." I felt she was posturing with her perceived entitlement of probing into my psyche....of course I was free to deny her that. At least I felt I was. But then I knew I needed the drugs that only she could grant me. With the drugs I am entitled to tell the whole world to go abuse itself for I am incapable of functioning due to my medications. Camus said there are only two choices...suicide or not. I think he was a little depressed. Prosac may have worked wonders for him. Yet as a writer and a thinker, one who was extremely out of sorts with the trends and tendencies of his world, he exercised the entitlement to express his dark views. I think he is in heaven. All clowns are entitled to go to heaven....as long as they are true clowns and not imposters. And then there was Celin...whew that guy was really depressed. With freedom you should be sly as a snake, witty as fox, arrogant as a bear, dumb as a mule, serious as a wolf, careful as a heron, watchful as an owl, quick as a mouse, happy as a puppy, and quiet as a lynx. True entitlement must be connected to our nature. But then are we to be masters of our nature? I believe Aristotle believed virtue consisted in that. Ultimately we are all only entitled to read. If we act it should be defined by a sense of beauty.

That is all.

We learn with agony that we are all at the mercy of those who are more powerful than we are. We are entitled to ignore them.

Editors note-
Here's another fine contribution from my friend Dave McKinney

-Entitlement-

When historians speak of the history of the United States, there are two concepts that seem to be universally accepted. One of these is manifest destiny. This is the idea that the settlers of the US were destined to settle the country from sea to shining sea and any natives that got in the way…well, bad luck. The other concept is rugged individualism and that is the concept I would like to discuss for a few minutes.

Rugged individualism is the idea that the individual is the community. Totally self-reliant, needing nothing from others, the frontiersman and his family, if any, lived in self-sustaining isolation until such time as the rest of civilization caught up with them. These individuals asked for nothing except the freedom to move about at will and the freedom to live off the land. The idea of any type of government assistance would be totally abhorrent to them.

So, given this background for the settlers of our country, you have to ask the question….what happened? It seems that everyone wants something from somebody else. If we drop a brick on our foot, we feel that we must sue the brick manufacturer for damages. After all, they made the things so bloody heavy and even had the nerve to manufacture them with no handles! This, of course, is a silly example but it does illustrate the feeling of entitlement to indemnification for any hurt that seems to exist today.

Unfortunately, that is not all. Some black activist groups feel that they are entitled to damages due to slavery. I, for one, believe that slavery is a terrible thing and, if they bring me someone who was enslaved during this terrible time in our history, I will fight to get them reparations. However, I don’t think anyone born after 1865 qualifies. Some athletes think they are entitled to damages because they were passed in school when they didn’t know how to read. Now this was a despicable act on the part of educators but I don’t think the athlete stood up and asked to be held back so they could learn properly.

So the age of rugged individualism is over, to be replaced by the age of no-fault life. Nothing is anyone’s fault, it is always someone else’s fault and everyone is entitled to reparations from somebody else. The sound you hear is Daniel Boone spinning rapidly in his grave.

Dave McKinney, Parker, CO.
October 8, 2003

Editors note-
Here's my own contribution-

-Entitlement-

This month’s Essay subject is one of the most difficult for me to write about. Nevertheless I shall plow on...

The word “entitle” means to give a title or name to something, to honor or dignify by a title or to give a right, claim or legal title to, or at least that is what the definition is according to my old and battered dictionary. Therefore “entitlement” must be the result of those actions.

I feel I am entitled to say that.

In our society we feel that we are entitled to good government in exchange for the taxes we pay and the power with which we entrust the government. We have designed a “safety net” to catch those who are in need of help and these are sometimes referred to as “entitlements.”

Some Artists feel they are entitled to have their work and sometimes even their concepts publicly funded regardless of the quality and content of their work. I disagree. I am a somewhat firm believer in market-driven Artwork. While I do agree with some funding of community-oriented Art I am generally not in favor of individual Artists receiving taxpayer’s money. I think that the practice of funding Artists willy-nilly would greatly decrease the quality of Art produced and do very little to help our society at large. I feel the same way about corporate welfare.

Arts Education in K-12 schools is another story. I think kids are entitled to exposure to the vast wealth of history and cultures available through Art. And they should be allowed to explore their own creativity unhindered by lack of funding for supplies and guidance. In fact, I think that our children are entitled to a heck of a lot more than that, especially in school. So often we forget that for a few dollars more the future of our country might be one of enlightened and well-rounded individuals. But instead, to save a few dollars a month, we vote no on school levies and each year our schools get more run-down and the teachers leave because they can’t support their own family’s wants and needs on a teacher’s salary.

Feeling that we are owed something just because we can breathe in and out is one thing, but those kids didn't ask to be brought into the world and yet they are here. I think we do owe it to them and to ourselves to entitle them to a first-rate education. As we grow old it will be the children of today that start to take over and I personally would rather that they are well-rounded people and able to comprehend all aspects of our society.

Well, I am entitled to make this a short essay if I feel like it. And that is what I’m going to do.

I would like to remind people that many of the topics of the past year are still open and if you would like to submit an essay for any of them you may feel entitled to do so.

Dave Cofell
Late September, 2003