• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Do You Have a Right to a Job?

Do You Have a Right to a Job?


  • Total voters
    128
Working, of course. I wonder what would happen if we didn't have social safety nets. Maybe if we didn't make not working so comfortable, people would seek a way, any way, to work.

Just thinking out loud. I do agree think we should have those safety nets. I do think welfare should supplement those who are working, not pay people not to work (unless they're truly disabled and stuff).

...I read somewhere that this was something Germany or Austria was trying...To make not working as uncomfortable as possible that is...
 
That's pretty messed up. The hairdresser license is a symbol of everything wrong with our political system. Think how much better off the poor would be if the barriers to entry for the market were not so high? All you need is a pair of scissors and you could start a business cutting hair from home, but for the government which requires you to pay to attend a hairdressing academy (who probably paid them kickbacks) for the privilege of paying to obtain a license. If you're broke then all of a sudden a job that you could have had for the cost of a pair of scissors is now prohibitively expensive.
Um, that training protects the owner from the cost of having to train you (cutting and color is not as easy as it looks), it protects the customer (heath & safety, yes virginia, you can catch all kinds of things from un-sanitized scissors and combs) and it pays for the inspections of the salons. This is dealing with a persons body, even nail techs are required to go through 400 hrs of training.....and the health issues they face are in some ways even more critical. Black market nail shops are a great way to get a nail fungus that never goes away.
 
...There's a big difference in a single person collecting compensation when the lower paying jobs are enough to survive on until something better comes along or you work your way into a better position...Than say a family of four...I wonder what the statistics are?...I hear so much focusing on illegal immigration (Southern countries mostly) and how they are taking unskilled low paying wage jobs away from Americans...I had often wondered how they manage to send money home to support their families and live here and work (I am not saying this is right mind you), living in poorer countries they know how to sacrifice when they need to better...Any thoughts?...
 
Um, that training protects the owner from the cost of having to train you (cutting and color is not as easy as it looks), it protects the customer (heath & safety, yes virginia, you can catch all kinds of things from un-sanitized scissors and combs) and it pays for the inspections of the salons. This is dealing with a persons body, even nail techs are required to go through 400 hrs of training.....and the health issues they face are in some ways even more critical. Black market nail shops are a great way to get a nail fungus that never goes away.

Four hundred hours? That's crazy.
 
...There's a big difference in a single person collecting compensation when the lower paying jobs are enough to survive on until something better comes along or you work your way into a better position...Than say a family of four...I wonder what the statistics are?...I hear so much focusing on illegal immigration (Southern countries mostly) and how they are taking unskilled low paying wage jobs away from Americans...I had often wondered how they manage to send money home to support their families and live here and work (I am not saying this is right mind you), living in poorer countries they know how to sacrifice when they need to better...Any thoughts?...

Americans are spoiled. The notion of poverty in the US is very different than in other countries. What we count as poverty here would actually be a nice living in really poor countries so I think people from such countries are more adept at knowing what's necessity and what isn't.

What is Poverty in the United States: Air Conditioning, Cable TV and an Xbox
 
Americans are spoiled. The notion of poverty in the US is very different than in other countries. What we count as poverty here would actually be a nice living in really poor countries so I think people from such countries are more adept at knowing what's necessity and what isn't.

What is Poverty in the United States: Air Conditioning, Cable TV and an Xbox

...It's funny, but I saw so many students living in communal situations sharing the sacrifices of poverty to climb out of it, which is exactly what people in other countries do to survive...So it's not like we're unaware of it...I agree...
 
Last edited:
I totally agree, Guy. In some areas, mainly doing with health care, licensing makes sense. But to cut hair? If you're good at it, you get business and if you suck, you don't.

I completely disagree. I don't think it ever makes sense to use interpersonal violence in such a manner. Who owns the hair cutter's body? Who decides what the hair cutter does with his body? To come in and issue an order that he SHALL NOT perform the action of cutting another person's hair, lest he be violently attacked is absolutely unjustified. Control of another person's physical body is nothing less than slavery.
 
...It's funny, but I saw so many students living in communal situations sharing the sacrifices of poverty to climb out of it, which is exactly what people in other countries do to survive...So it's not like we're unaware of it...I agree...

Well and don't get me wrong. I think it's great our standard of living so high that everybody can have greater expectations than mere survival. I just think it funny and sad at the same time what we take for granted and rail against capitalism when that's the very thing that made our standard of living so high.
 
I completely disagree. I don't think it ever makes sense to use interpersonal violence in such a manner. Who owns the hair cutter's body? Who decides what the hair cutter does with his body? To come in and issue an order that he SHALL NOT perform the action of cutting another person's hair, lest he be violently attacked is absolutely unjustified. Control of another person's physical body is nothing less than slavery.

Interpersonal violence? I don't understand what you mean or what exactly in my post you disagree with.
 
Interpersonal violence? I don't understand what you mean or what exactly in my post you disagree with.

I disagree that licensing ever makes sense.

Licensing boils down to this: The government says, "You may not do X until we say you may. If you do X, we are prepared to use violence to punish you and to make you stop."

Licensing is nothing more than some people claiming ownership (the right to control) over the physical body of another person.

I oppose it, as I oppose all initiation of violence.
 
I disagree that licensing ever makes sense.

Licensing boils down to this: The government says, "You may not do X until we say you may. If you do X, we are prepared to use violence to punish you and to make you stop."

Licensing is nothing more than some people claiming ownership (the right to control) over the physical body of another person.

I oppose it, as I oppose all initiation of violence.

Thanks for clarifying. I do think there are certain professions that the government does have an interest in seeing to it that the people practicing it have a basic competence in it.
 
I disagree that licensing ever makes sense.

Licensing boils down to this: The government says, "You may not do X until we say you may. If you do X, we are prepared to use violence to punish you and to make you stop."

Licensing is nothing more than some people claiming ownership (the right to control) over the physical body of another person.

I oppose it, as I oppose all initiation of violence.
i dont fully agree you sir.

licensing does have its purposes, ...it does get abused a lot by bureaucrats.

licensing can help to prevent fraud, and misinterpretation, health and safety issues.

licensing should not be used to force people to do things, just becuase the licensee does something government just does not like.
 
Thanks for clarifying. I do think there are certain professions that the government does have an interest in seeing to it that the people practicing it have a basic competence in it.

i dont fully agree you sir.

licensing does have its purposes, ...it does get abused a lot by bureaucrats.

licensing can help to prevent fraud, and misinterpretation, health and safety issues.

licensing should not be used to force people to do things, just becuase the licensee does something government just does not like.

It is not in the government's interest. The government is not involved; it is a third-party that has no standing in the arrangement between service provider and customer.

I totally agree that the purchaser may certainly be concerned with the level of competence of the service provider he is engaging. And there is absolutely no reason why customers can't insist that their service provider show the proper certifications.

I should explain that I start from the position that it is totally unjustified to INITIATE violence against an innocent person. Government threats against unlicensed people constitute an initiation of violence, so I cannot support them.

I DO however support the right of customers to put unqualified and uncertified providers out of business. I also support the idea that an negligent or incompetent provider could be considered a tortfeasor or malfeasor.
 
It is not in the government's interest. The government is not involved; it is a third-party that has no standing in the arrangement between service provider and customer.

I totally agree that the purchaser may certainly be concerned with the level of competence of the service provider he is engaging. And there is absolutely no reason why customers can't insist that their service provider show the proper certifications.

I should explain that I start from the position that it is totally unjustified to INITIATE violence against an innocent person. Government threats against unlicensed people constitute an initiation of violence, so I cannot support them.

I DO however support the right of customers to put unqualified and uncertified providers out of business. I also support the idea that an negligent or incompetent provider could be considered a tortfeasor or malfeasor.

well i look at it has the government, meaning local or state, is to protect the people, from fraud, abuse, misrepresentation, stealing.

but what i see has government going further than that and getting involved in things of business which they have no authority over.
 
well i look at it has the government, meaning local or state, is to protect the people, from fraud, abuse, misrepresentation, stealing.

but what i see has government going further than that and getting involved in things of business which they have no authority over.

I agree that when a person acts to defraud, abuse, misrepresent, or steal from another, the victim has a legitimate right to seek a remedy in a court of law.

I don't agree that the government can issue orders limiting what a person may do with his own body and property, as long as he doesn't uninvitedly invade the person or property of another.
 
I agree that when a person acts to defraud, abuse, misrepresent, or steal from another, the victim has a legitimate right to seek a remedy in a court of law.

I don't agree that the government can issue orders limiting what a person may do with his own body and property, as long as he doesn't uninvitedly invade the person or property of another.

yes those are the areas government is outside the constitution.
 
Well and don't get me wrong. I think it's great our standard of living so high that everybody can have greater expectations than mere survival. I just think it funny and sad at the same time what we take for granted and rail against capitalism when that's the very thing that made our standard of living so high.

partly l agree with that article

l cant have as much knowledge about it as you have but l see people complain about health insurance policy executed by the governments

health is more vital than coffee maker and LCD tv :mrgreen:,,

also l believe usa'S socio economic facts ,developments shouldnt be compared to the rest of the world if it is a world power and teh country of liberties
 
Um, that training protects the owner from the cost of having to train you (cutting and color is not as easy as it looks), it protects the customer (heath & safety, yes virginia, you can catch all kinds of things from un-sanitized scissors and combs) and it pays for the inspections of the salons. This is dealing with a persons body, even nail techs are required to go through 400 hrs of training.....and the health issues they face are in some ways even more critical. Black market nail shops are a great way to get a nail fungus that never goes away.

Authoritarians always have a million excuses. But the free market can provide all of that, far more efficiently, and without violating anyone's rights. If there were no coercive nail-parlor licensure regimes to contend with then there wouldn't be any black market nail shops.
 
Authoritarians always have a million excuses. But the free market can provide all of that, far more efficiently, and without violating anyone's rights. If there were no coercive nail-parlor licensure regimes to contend with then there wouldn't be any black market nail shops.
Um, lets play this out....lets say you are right....that these "private market" regulating entities were cheaper (of course, they would have to be profitable, but that is assumed), they would still require yearly fees to exist, so there would be some costs involved....but guess what, even in that regime, you would still have a black market because someone is always trying to avoid cost and authority.
 
There are plenty of jobs out there. They just aren't very good ones for the most part. I took a job that pays about 2/3rds of the job i was laid off from. Life simply stinks at times. And for those who think a job is beneath them, that is a defeatist attitude. The best way to get a better job is to be employed in any job, no matter how bad it is. With so many applicants per positions available, you can bet an employer will hire someone willing to work those jobs before hiring someone of equal qualifications that is not willing to work them.

Just to let you all know, in some local governments some of those agencies prefer to hire females and hispanics (which means Mexican in some areas).
 
You can earn the right to getting a job
 
Look at it like this...

If Joe can't get a job and doesn't have the means to start his own business... what is he going to do? What's his wife and kids gonna do?

They're not going away. They're not going to lay down in some quiet corner and politely die so the rest of society doesn't have to bother with them.

So...

Do you want Joe working a job, drawing Welfare, or stealing for a living? Pick one.

How did our ancestors ever survive before others employed them and paid them money?
 
I would regard governance as the rules of a society that are intended to facilitate peaceful coexistence.

And the most basic rule of peaceful coexistence is that it is wrong to initiate interpersonal violence against people who have harmed no other person or person's property.

Yes, if people want services they must pay for them. I don't argue with that. I only argue against the forcible taking of other's property to pay for services for which they haven't asked.

What service do they provide for which people might be willing to pay?
Then I'll tentatively class you as a minarchist unless you'd like to provide a more accurate one.
 
Back
Top Bottom