Perhaps you know the name Nick Faldo. If you have followed professional golf in the last ten years, the odds are pretty good that you do.
He’s a British lad who achieved a lot in the game and has now become a popular announcer of golf for CBS. The other announcers there, including the famous-in-his-own-right Jim Nantz, call him “Sir Nick.”
That isn’t because he’s won three Open Championships (what many golfers not from Great Britain call “The British Open) and three Masters Championships. No one calls Jack Nicklaus Sir Jack.
So why “Sir Nick?” Because in 1988 Faldo was named a Member of the British Empire, and in 1989 he was made a Knight Bachelor. Knights, as you are no doubt aware, are properly addressed as “Sir.”
In other words, Nick has the title and is therefore entitled to be called Sir.
I’m pretty sure Nick lives in Montana, so I haven’t seen him on the highways of Phoenix. But there are a lot of people on those roads that believe they are entitled to be called “Sir” any time they are on the road.
They are entitled to not only turn right on red (stopping not required) but even to blow right through if they are going straight.
Is there a space longer than one car length between you and the car in front of you? They are entitled to slide right into it.
You may want to call them a name, and it is probably not Sir.
It isn’t just drivers…
A few decades ago I officiated at the marriage of two friends of mine. The groom and I were friends first, and the bride and I became friends after they began dating though long before he popped the question. When he did, she said yes, the wedding was planned and carried off without a hitch.
The bride was beautiful, the groom was nervous, the ceremony was serious in all the right places, and the reception was fun.
As it turns out, the marriage didn’t take. They were married less than a year. The bride, however, thought she was entitled to a pretty sizable part of the groom’s money. Was she?
Perhaps you know some family, as I do, that is providing housing and meals, etc., to a child of theirs who is no longer a child. It is becoming more and more common. In fact, according to Pew Research,
As of 2016, 15% of 25- to 35-year-old Millennials were living in their parents’ home. This is 5 percentage points higher than the share of Generation Xers who lived in their parents’ home in 2000 when they were the same age (10%), and nearly double the share of the Silent Generation who lived at home in 1964 (8%).
The Early Boomers were the same as the Silents, percentage wise.
Why is that number growing? Researchers, as well as those still living at home, will tell you there are economic factors. It’s more expensive now, and jobs pay less. That could be, but I have a different answer.
Kinds of entitlement
Before I dive into that, let me note that there is such a thing as voluntary entitlement. That generally happens through some contractual arrangement, and it is the kind of entitlement the bride was claiming.
There is also inherent entitlement, and that is the kind the 25 – 35 year old living at home might claim. It is definitely the kind claimed by that part of the American population that lives on “the welfare state.”
It is also the difference between a program like Social Security, which is voluntary, and government child-care, which is inherent. You have kids? The government will pay for their care. Maybe even summer camp.
All of that adds up to a lot of money out of one pocket going into another because the recipient is claiming to be entitled to that money. If they have a contract, perhaps they are.
Entitlement versus Obligation
What we all have, and what I think is the answer to a great deal of entitlement challenges, is obligation.
If I’m a healthy young adult living at home, I think I have an obligation to help pay for the place I live, the food I eat, and so on. Rather than saying, “You owe me this (I’m entitled),” the statement might be, “How can I help?”
I’d go so far as to say that the willingness of parents to continue housing their children is directly proportional to their willingness and effort to fulfill their own obligations toward the household.
Was the groom (above) willing to negotiate with the bride? Perhaps he might have been had there been some modicum of obligation on her part. Instead she simply said, “You owe me,” and she said it through an attorney. As it turns out, the court disagreed.
Would I let that speeding, weaving, car into the space in front of me? Of course, because it would be dangerous not to. But I’d be much more likely to do that if the driver would activate the turn signal. (I’m amazed at how many cars on the road seem to have non-working turn signals.)
Of all the government entitlement programs, the largest by far is Social Security. It is also the only big program that is purely voluntary and clearly contractual. I paid into it for years with only the promise that I could collect if I lived long enough. Still, I’d be willing to modify that program because I think it is my obligation.
I don’t think, “I’ve done my part, now I’m entitled to what’s mine.” My obligation doesn’t end when the benefit begins.
If we are going to be people who do good, we are going to focus first on our obligations. Those are rooted in morality, and our responsibilities toward others and society.
I live in America. Rather than saying to the government, “You owe me,” I want to say, “How can I help?”
Imagine what it would be like if we all did that.
Do good. Even if it takes courage, it’s in you.
Are you entitled?
Perhaps you know the name Nick Faldo. If you have followed professional golf in the last ten years, the odds are pretty good that you do.
He’s a British lad who achieved a lot in the game and has now become a popular announcer of golf for CBS. The other announcers there, including the famous-in-his-own-right Jim Nantz, call him “Sir Nick.”
That isn’t because he’s won three Open Championships (what many golfers not from Great Britain call “The British Open) and three Masters Championships. No one calls Jack Nicklaus Sir Jack.
So why “Sir Nick?” Because in 1988 Faldo was named a Member of the British Empire, and in 1989 he was made a Knight Bachelor. Knights, as you are no doubt aware, are properly addressed as “Sir.”
In other words, Nick has the title and is therefore entitled to be called Sir.
I’m pretty sure Nick lives in Montana, so I haven’t seen him on the highways of Phoenix. But there are a lot of people on those roads that believe they are entitled to be called “Sir” any time they are on the road.
They are entitled to not only turn right on red (stopping not required) but even to blow right through if they are going straight.
Is there a space longer than one car length between you and the car in front of you? They are entitled to slide right into it.
You may want to call them a name, and it is probably not Sir.
It isn’t just drivers…
A few decades ago I officiated at the marriage of two friends of mine. The groom and I were friends first, and the bride and I became friends after they began dating though long before he popped the question. When he did, she said yes, the wedding was planned and carried off without a hitch.
The bride was beautiful, the groom was nervous, the ceremony was serious in all the right places, and the reception was fun.
As it turns out, the marriage didn’t take. They were married less than a year. The bride, however, thought she was entitled to a pretty sizable part of the groom’s money. Was she?
Perhaps you know some family, as I do, that is providing housing and meals, etc., to a child of theirs who is no longer a child. It is becoming more and more common. In fact, according to Pew Research,
Why is that number growing? Researchers, as well as those still living at home, will tell you there are economic factors. It’s more expensive now, and jobs pay less. That could be, but I have a different answer.
Kinds of entitlement
Before I dive into that, let me note that there is such a thing as voluntary entitlement. That generally happens through some contractual arrangement, and it is the kind of entitlement the bride was claiming.
There is also inherent entitlement, and that is the kind the 25 – 35 year old living at home might claim. It is definitely the kind claimed by that part of the American population that lives on “the welfare state.”
It is also the difference between a program like Social Security, which is voluntary, and government child-care, which is inherent. You have kids? The government will pay for their care. Maybe even summer camp.
All of that adds up to a lot of money out of one pocket going into another because the recipient is claiming to be entitled to that money. If they have a contract, perhaps they are.
Entitlement versus Obligation
What we all have, and what I think is the answer to a great deal of entitlement challenges, is obligation.
If I’m a healthy young adult living at home, I think I have an obligation to help pay for the place I live, the food I eat, and so on. Rather than saying, “You owe me this (I’m entitled),” the statement might be, “How can I help?”
I’d go so far as to say that the willingness of parents to continue housing their children is directly proportional to their willingness and effort to fulfill their own obligations toward the household.
Was the groom (above) willing to negotiate with the bride? Perhaps he might have been had there been some modicum of obligation on her part. Instead she simply said, “You owe me,” and she said it through an attorney. As it turns out, the court disagreed.
Would I let that speeding, weaving, car into the space in front of me? Of course, because it would be dangerous not to. But I’d be much more likely to do that if the driver would activate the turn signal. (I’m amazed at how many cars on the road seem to have non-working turn signals.)
Of all the government entitlement programs, the largest by far is Social Security. It is also the only big program that is purely voluntary and clearly contractual. I paid into it for years with only the promise that I could collect if I lived long enough. Still, I’d be willing to modify that program because I think it is my obligation.
I don’t think, “I’ve done my part, now I’m entitled to what’s mine.” My obligation doesn’t end when the benefit begins.
If we are going to be people who do good, we are going to focus first on our obligations. Those are rooted in morality, and our responsibilities toward others and society.
I live in America. Rather than saying to the government, “You owe me,” I want to say, “How can I help?”
Imagine what it would be like if we all did that.
Do good. Even if it takes courage, it’s in you.
Get The Do Good U news
We won’t send you spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Let's Do Some Good
Learn more about our programs.