The concept of sharing is something taught to children at an early age. It is a beneficial social interaction. One person has “something” another does not. The person who “has”, transfers ownership of a portion of that “something” to another person who” has not”; and now both “have” some of whatever “something” was shared.

When the “has” person gives to the “has not” person, the “has” person feels pleasure in the knowledge they have benefitted the “has not” person and the “has not” person feels appreciation that the “has’ person sacrificed on their behalf. This is a win-win situation.

The concept of entitlement completely changes the paradigm of the exercise.

When the donor is pressured into forced charity, the donor’s pleasure is extinguished and replaced by a feeling of being robbed. The recipient’s feeling of gratitude is thwarted unless the donor releases more than an equitable share of the property. Under this paradigm, simple 50/50 appears only fair and doesn’t rise to the point of sacrifice and cannot be praised.

Right or wrong, these are the emotions catholic to our species.

Further, recipients while not sated, tend to lose the ambition to put forth effort acquire on their own, because it isn’t necessary.

There is, in the air, the current push to pronounce certain properties and services innate human rights of individuals, even though much of what is discussed has only recently come into being through technology and the talents, ingenuity and efforts of others. Abortion, electronic communication, health care, housing and minimum wages are included in the argument. These are not innate rights. They are only societal entitlements, subject to revision. Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness stand separately as  innate rights.

All things go off the rails when human nature ( a completely unchangeable force ) is ignored.