You Must Pay For My Wedding Because I Don’t Work

https://grantcoulson.files.wordpress.com/2014/04/incentiveseverywherepicturecorrect1.jpg?w=444&h=288

Displaying

        Do not think about, write about or deal with  human behavior without determining the effects of incentives. It’s not their money, of course they’ll waste it.

    Wherein we see the logical result of the liberal assumption that freedom is not freedom TO DO, but FREEDOM FROM. Franklin Roosevelt, the great believer in “government can, and should, do everything” talked about freedom from “want.” Since there are no limits to wants, the following is “logical.” Libertarians want freedom from the government, not handouts.

Woman Demands Tax-Payers Fund Her $15,000 Wedding, as a “Basic Human Right
By Rebekah Maxwell on April 24, 2015

This Week’s Sign the Apocalypse is Upon Us

They say every girl dreams of being a bride (well, when the militant feminists aren’t within earshot, they say that).

Every girl wants a special fairytale wedding, all her own, and all about her…groom optional. A fancy dress, a giant party, an exotic location…you might say it’s her human right. Okay, you might not– but only because you’re resisting the next round of societal evolution.

One unemployed woman has her heart set on a ‘fairy-tale church wedding’ – and believes the taxpayer should foot the bill as it is her “basic human right” to be a bride.

<insert>

    This is not an unemployed woman, this is a professional welfare recipient.

At 33-years old, Anna Broom has been on welfare ever since she was 19, when she was declared “too overweight to work.” Over the last 14 years, she’s claimed more than £100,000 from British taxpayers (about $150,000) in benefits.

Still not working, but now engaged, Miss Broom has requested that the public give her another £10,000 ($15,000) for her dream wedding and another $3000 or so for a honeymoon in Mexico. Because it’s her “basic human right” to be a bride.

The size 24 bride-to-be told the Daily Mail: “I’ve dreamed about being a bride since I was 12 years old. I deserve a fairy-tale church wedding and a party in a castle – but there’s no way I could afford it on benefits and I can’t work because I’m overweight,” she says.

<insert>

    Note the difference between passive and active–Not that I eat too much, but, I’m overweight–no idea how it happened.

“I want the taxpayer to fund my £10,000 dream wedding – it’s a basic human right to be a bride. I don’t see why I should have a small wedding at a registry office – I wouldn’t be able to fit in all my guests and a church wedding is far more romantic.”

Quite. Far more expensive, too…but not when you can use other people’s money. Miss Broom also says that she needs this wedding subsidy to help her lose weight:

“I’m stuck in a rut at the moment and can’t find the motivation to lose weight, but if I was getting married I know I’d slim down because all eyes would be on me.”

And isn’t that the way it should be?

Miss Broom met her fiance, Jordan (who is also on welfare and has never worked) at a pub in 2009, and it was “love at first sight.” But for a wedding, she decided that it’s a full-on bridal blitz, or nothing: “I’d rather not get married than have a cheap do – it’d only make me unhappy.”

<insert>

   Two professional welfare recipients meeting in a pub. I’m shocked, shocked.

And isn’t that what the taxpayers are there for, madam–to make you happy?

She says she could pay the $18,000 back to the tax-payers in small doses. Presumably with her welfare checks…which they pay her. That seems reasonable.

But why should she have to hold back on booking the castle and ordering the champagne? This is her “basic human right” we’re talking about. After funding her daily life, pub trips and all, upon what grounds can they deny her anything else she wants…er, needs?

In America, we’ve already declared that weddings are basic human rights; that a business owner must participate in them, if the couple demands it. Well, at least with Christian business owners and same-sex couples. But why is principle any different here?

We’ve already agreed that food, housing, medical care, health insurance, jobs/income, etc. are “basic human rights”…which means, when you want them don’t have them, the government (from whence our rights come) will graciously provide…by confiscating from those who do have them.  That’s the way human rights work.

And we’ve established that government can force businesses to provide goods and services to people who say they want/need them, against the business owners will or ability to do so, from elective abortion coverage to bouquets for the groom and groom.

How then could any progressive government refuse to fund this woman’s lavish “fairytale wedding,” after they’ve funded everything else they’ve labeled a “basic human right”? Government itself buys and sells the fairytale…and forces the taxpayers to foot the bill. That’s our duty: to pay for other people’s “rights.”

Say it with me now, comrades: A”right” is whatever our government says it is. No right exists that do not spring first from government approval. All rights are equal…but some are more equal than others. All rights flow first to the protected class. You are not a protected class.

Now, get back to work: those welfare weddings won’t fund themselves.

<end>

  You have the right to never work, but I MUST pay for it. Strange liberal world, ain’t it?

Government Job or Respect–Which’ll It Be?
Cheerio and ttfn,
Grant Coulson, Ph.D.
Author, “Days of Songs and Mirrors: A Jacobite in the ‘45.”
Cui Bono–Cherchez les Contingencies

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: