[b_tterc_p]

1) many people depend on government services

2) calling anyone who recognizes utility of government services is unnecessary and just incorrect

3) suggesting that everyone can take of themselves is simply not true. Some people need help.

4) tone is dickish

[sbenitoj]

1) does that mean they’re entitled to them? Why can’t these needs be met by those people, their families, or simply remain unmet?

2) socialism = redistribution of wealth; govt services are redistribution of wealth

3) didn’t say everyone can take care of themselves, many people can’t take care of themselves now even WITH govt assistance, it’s completely beside the point

4) true

[detaro]

Patent protection, law enforcement, safe international finance and goods market access are just some examples of "govt services" Apple benefits greatly from.

[arcticbull]

(1) They are entitled to them because the government is an extension of the will of the people, and the people entitled certain classes to certain benefits. We, the people, can change this. Until we do, they are and will remain entitled. People payed in to provide these benefits and these benefits are being rendered.

That said they're not all "take" and no "give." As a sibling posted, patent protection incentivizes the inclusion of invention in the public domain in exchange for temporary monopoly. Copyright law and IP law give rise to whole industries in and of themselves. All of which rely on law enforcement, on fire protection, on education, on healthcare, etc. These things cost money.

(2) Classical Socialism is not redistribution of wealth. Socialism is the government controlling the means of production. Wealth is not the means of production it is the ends. Socialism in the public discourse in the US is yet another definition, basically "capitalism with guard rails" where society ensures a minimum standard of health and well-being for everyone so that we can all rise to the level of our abilities in a meritocratic way instead of plutocratically.

(3) Yes, you are correct, however I personally believe in the "I'd rather 90% of my contributions squandered than see someone die unnecessarily because they fell through the cracks" -- it's really easy to end up there through a series of unfortunate events and I'm not willing to write these people off.

(4) Dick-ish tone or not (and it happens to me by accident from time to time) you do deserve level-headed reply, though I do only speak for myself.