I'm glad our generation is getting "mad as hell" rather than depressed and glum. It's about time to understand that life is a fight. If you're lucky like most of us in technology, you struggle for relevance rather than survival, but it's a fight nonetheless. Work very hard, anticipate conflict, and do the right thing even if it hurts.

First, the claim that we're "entitled" is an old saw. Whenever a downtrodden group (not that Millennials are "downtrodden" in absolute terms, but in relative terms we are, as a group, quite unfortunate) starts asserting itself, the first thing the opposition does is claim that it's "uppity", "impatient", and "entitled". The second thing it does is focus on extreme examples-- man-hating "feminazis" instead of mainstream, reasonable feminists, frank perverts instead of normal LGBT people, racial nationalists like Garvey instead of King, spoiled upper-middle-class 22-year-olds refusing perfectly decent entry-level jobs-- as an excuse for ignoring the more numerous moderates who have a compelling moral point.

Next, I think it's useful to delve into a political philosophy that's endemic among our generation. Personally, I'm a libertarian. A left-libertarian. A true libertarian. For philosophical and theological reasons, I believe the objective of society is to maximize individual liberty, health, and creative freedom and that this often involves (preferably lightweight) "socialist" measures, but that small government is better than large (in the same way that 500 LoC to deliver the same functionality as 20,000 LoC is superior). As soon as full employment becomes untenable (and it looks like that may be the case) basic income programs are in order.

All this said, there needs to be examination of the difference between absolute and relative rights, because this is where right-libertarians (the ones who currently use the name, "libertarian") embarrass themselves and our society (cf. healthcare). There are very few absolute rights. One is the right not to be murdered, but there is no "absolute right to life" (God will deny me that "right", and though I hope my death doesn't come too soon, I'm glad that it will someday happen). Another is the unconditional right to refuse sexual contact for any reason. That's an absolute right: not to be raped. A third is the right not to be coerced to work, except in life-threatening circumstances. Food, shelter, healthcare are not absolute rights. They are relative rights, contingent on the resources available. If food is plentiful, then everyone (even "useless" people like, I don't know, myself 28 years ago when I was 18 inches tall) has the right not to go hungry. If we are stranded where is no food, a "right to food" makes no sense because there is no food available. All this said, relative rights are just as morally meaningful as absolute ones.

The people currently called "libertarians" (i.e. right-libertarians) focus on the absolute rights that apply anywhere, even in 476 AD in Bavaria or 1849 in Death Valley or 2075 in outer space, and not on the relative ones that depend on social infrastructure. It's rugged individualism. This is a severe mistake. Those relative rights are just as important.

This seems like a digression, but it's extremely meaningful. If our generation can be characterized, I'd say that we're intensely libertarian, but we tend (on average) toward left-libertarianism that looks a lot like liberalism. We've seen that social conservatism is a moral disaster, but also that big government doesn't always work. Differences between us and the older style of liberalism are (a) that we're more practical, willing to rally behind a centrist presidential candidate if he's obviously an intelligent and good human being, (b) we're extremely skeptical of governments and we're fiscally conservative as a result, (c) we have a world focus and don't buy into it when someone tries to tell us we're special because we were born on a certain patch of land, (d) in general, we're anti-war, having seen the immense loss (of life, and of finances) that occurs when people are too quick to pursue violent action.