Livelihood: a means of securing the necessities of life
“Memaw” Ivey, as she has been affectionately — or derisively? — referred to, tweeted the other day. Maybe it’s the emphasis of this being a reiteration. Maybe it’s the conciseness. Something about it sounds more like an ultimatum than a life lesson, prescriptive rather than descriptive. Something about ‘cannot’ is so definitive in the statement.
“You cannot have a life without a livelihood.”
Why do I get the feeling that’s the polite Southern way of saying, “If you don’t have a job, you don’t deserve to live.”
It’s true that if you don’t get water, food, and shelter — at the bare minimum — then your life will end. There is a fundamental aspect to the statement that is understandable. It’s also false.
There are plenty of people rightfully exempt from such an expectation. Different levels of physical and mental ability might prevent someone from being able to take care of them self. We certainly don’t expect children to go it alone and secure their own necessities. On the other end of the age bracket, we believe the elderly have a right to life without continuing to work. So it is possible to have a life without a livelihood.
Of course, Twitter’s character limitations prevent nuance. Governor Ivey would never say people who can’t provide for themselves forfeit their life. That doesn’t sound as nice as, “You cannot have a life without a livelihood.”