“Once the government becomes the supplier of people's needs, there is no limit to the needs that will be claimed as a basic right.”

Lawrence Auster is one of the America's most venomous racists.
From The Appreciative Followers
'Nice' leader, guru, and moral example.

Now for the inevitable 'socialist' name calling...

When government provides the people's "wants" as their "needs," it's a quick slippery slope from it claiming the people's "needs" as their "rights." Such is the demise of a Republic. When my elected official claims that it is my poor neighbor's "want" to have my money, I tell that elected offical to go to hell, and I keep my hard earned money. When my elected offical claims that it is my poor neighbor's "need" to have my money to live, and it is necessary, regardless of my own choice, to give it to him-- then I fight against the encroachment upon my Liberty. But, when my elected offical can force me to pay for my neighbor's "right" to my own money, my Liberty is no longer in question -- it is dead.

I am not surprised that there are critics that lash out at those that wish to cut off government entitlements -- dependence on government funds (i.e. other people's money) is a wicked vice.

"There is an almost universal tendency,
perhaps an inborn tendency,
to suspect the good faith of a man
who holds opinions that differ from our own opinions...
It obviously endangers the freedom
and the objectivity of our discussion
if we attack a person instead of attacking
an opinion or, more precisely, a theory." -- Sir Karl Popper

I'm not sure what Terry and Reston are getting from this freedom website? You SOCIALISTS! hahaha Maybe you enjoy paying 1/3 of what you earn to the government? Maybe you are taking more than that 1/3 back thru some government program?

Well, what I'm not getting is 'church'-like obeisance to the 'religion'.

You can attack the messenger BUT, the substance of the stand alone quote has been proven by history over, and over, and over, and over, and over again, etc., etc. etc.

oops, I forgot to rate the quote and as a p.s., Logan, you're absolutley right, and Terry: lol, the law of the harvest comes to mind here: 'you get out what you put in.'

Mike; Thanks for that - lol. It's also called GIGO on occasion (or brain fart) although I wouldn't want to provide too much ammunition - just yet.
In my defence, I'd say that I'd still view a quote by Hitler or David Duke with more scepticism than I would a Quote by Jefferson - not to shoot the messenger but to regard the motives as context for an assertion.

"Some people say it is 'name-calling' if you refer to someone as a liberal. There is nothing inherently negative about the word 'liberal.' If it has acquired negative overtones, that is because of what liberals have done and the consequences that followed." ---Thomas Sowell

Dear "Have a nice day" -- I indeed "suspect the good faith of a man who holds opinions that differ from our (my) own opinions..." in cases like those of Adolf Hitler and Lawrence Auster. I also suspect the motivation, judgement, and integrity of defenders of the likes of these and others of their ilk. It's a personal quirk of mine and evidently not so much of an issue for some others.

Who could quibble with the stance of Adolf Hitler when he said; "We stand for the maintenance of private property." I'd still suspect the motives behind the articulation. I'd nevertheless have to agree that I approve of the stance.

Isn't it the government's duty to serve the people, to supply them with the things they need?

Clear sighted, blunt, and on the money.

Anonymous, an answer to your question is a resounding NO!!!. That is the job of religion. Government's job is to serve the individual by representing his naturally occurring lawful - secular expressions. Again, religion is: "real piety in practice, consisting in the performance of all known duties to God and our fellow men." (Bouviers Law Dictionary) When government's performed duties expand to suppling the needs of his fellow man (legalizing baby sacrifice, forcing an insurance tribute for life, offering a sustained food supply, etc.) it is defined as a theocracy.

The realization by people that they can vote things for themselves is one of the final stages of a democracy. We are now in a state of complete decay.

How the hell someone so far away in D.C. can know what someone else in America needs if far beyond me. Ron Paul said let's let these things be state issues so local folks can decide what they may need and so do it for them selves. Big Brother may stay in Washington and I hope he shrinks and becomes "little brother" for a change!

I'm not familiar with Lawrence Auster , but the quote is exactly right.

Fear that it is past doing anything about it.

Warren, its never too late. Not as long as the majority of Americans support and exercise their 2nd Amendment rights.

Sounds a lot like this quote: “You cannot legislate the poor into freedom by legislating the wealthy out of freedom. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that my dear friend, is about the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it.” Yes sir... Stop immigration...Repel the invaders... Hang the traitors

I was very drawn by Lawrence Auster until i found out he only claimed to be a lawyer. and many of the things he prints were false or with so many error.... im going to go somewhere else now.... no thanks L.A.

Lawrence Auster is dead on target in this comment.
It models the comment of Thomas Jefferson - "A government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take away everything you have."
A government that bases itself on making the individual solely dependent on it eats away at personal self-initiative, responsibility and self respect.

NEVER, were the folks in D.C. to provide for the needs of the States and the People -- NEVER. This is an assumed power, never granted to them lawfully. The People allowed to innovate and trade without state dictates will prosper beyond whatever Utopian dreams the statists can come up with. Never do the neighbors have a 'right' to my labors or property whether they attempt to steal it from me directly or via hired guns. We have the right to PURSUE happiness, not a guarantee of it from the state.

The States united by agreement were to be a representative republic at natural law, limited by the Constitution. "Government", in the case of the de jure U.S.'s republic was / is to represent the sovereign individual's rights at law and justice. If the sovereign can not do it, his representative(s) can not do it. "Once the government becomes the supplier of people's needs", it no longer represents the sovereign by protecting rights, operating at natural law and looses its ability to relate to justice. Fulfilling needs is a moral imperative of religion, not a lawful realm of secular government.

The truth of the quote is obvious, it is all around us as long as you have your eyes open and are willing to accept what you see.
It is basic human nature.
Any person rejecting this truth is most likely a recipient of other peoples money, got to keep that gravy train rolling and expanding because that socialist utopia is right around the corner.

Exactly true...why don't we ever learn!

Wiki's page on Auster is worth reading. The quotation herein strikes a chord with me, partly because during my 85 years, I've been both a not-complaining "giver" and a little bit of a feeling-guilty "taker." Perhaps few, if any, can claim to consistently be one or the other. As to NEEDS vs. RIGHTS: a large can of the proverbial night crawlers !