It’s a variant of “positive rights vs negative rights”: the observation that the only real/valid “rights” are ones which do NOT require anyone else to do anything. In this case, Salon is trying to conflate “positive welfare” with “negative welfare”, ignoring the vast difference between “from each according to his means, to each according to his needs” with “Constitutional public welfare clause”.
“It’s there, use it, just don’t screw it up for anyone else” is far different from “I’m going to incarcerate you if you don’t give him money”.
Exactly! Makes one wonder how they deal with the idea of American Indians living off the land. It would probably blow their mind to bring it up. Their silly thinking would make tribes living in the rain forests technically welfare recipients by default. :-)