Am I obligated to foot the bill for everyone who has less than me?

Question

This happened the other day and it really grinds my gears. Anyway, I have plenty of money, a six figure job, nice car, nice house, you name it. I'm making small talk with a woman at the office who is approaching 50 and really has nothing to show for it (no house, lives paycheck to paycheck, etc.) due to living life day by day her whole life. The whole "how was your weekend" goes to what I did, and I happened to go to Laughlin, NV that weekend and ended up losing 75 bucks at the c**p table. She immediately lets out a "Oh, I could have used that money!" with the implication clearly being that selfish people like myself shouldn't go off and blow 75 bucks goofing off in Laughlin while poor, downtrodden disenfranchised people like her could use the money. When she was 20 she was goofing off and going nowhere while I was paying for an education and acquiring skills that have lasted me a lifetime. Is that where we are in America, the haves are obligated to hand it over to the have nots even though their lots in life are due to the bad choices they've made?

Answer 1

Should you be obligated? Absolutely not.

Are you obligated? It depends on who you ask.

Our country has been slowly transitioning from a Republic, in which our property is protected by laws, into a Democracy, in which a fickle and envious public can vote themselves anything they want out of your pocket.

While I believe that charity and giving are among the most noble acts an individual can perform, I am both disgusted and baffled by those who attempt to use government force to "help" those who are less fortunate, while considering themselves as "generous" and those who oppose them as "greedy".

How exactly can one be compassionate and generous while doling out someone else's money?

Answer 2

They would like you to, and they would call you "greedy and cruel" for not wanting to.  

Answer 3

Do I really have to pay for corporations that fail? i.e. airlines, S&L debacle, Du Pont, Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac, Countrywide.

You should be asking about the corporate welfare state and subsidies where your tax dollars really go, my friend. There you will truly find the meaning of "haves and have-nots."

You created the implication. She spoke frankly, sir. She probably could use the money and it sounds like you felt a little selfish about it. She did nothing to provoke your inner feelings other than stating the obvious. The true problem seems to be with yourself. Dig deep into your libertarian soul and ask yourself why you feel so offended by someone stating the truth about their feeling.

My leftist rhetoric, obviously, is nothing of the sort if you are a "libertarian". It sounds  like a stance we agree on. I love labels, don't you?

Answer 4

Do I really have to surrender my liberty and privacy for people who are needlessly afraid of the terrorists under every bush?

The scaremongering in the so called "war on terror" is an example of fear-based Socialism.

We surrender our way of life --instead of our money-- in order to make a few cowards FEEL safer.

Answer 5

Of course we must, it's the only way Liberals (Democrats) can bribe (umm transfer wealth to) their constituents. I wonder how many of these folks that support punitive taxation would be willing to pay twice the amount for a steak dinner than their poorer next door neighbor would be charged for the same meal at the same establishment.