View Poll Results: Do You Have a Right to a Job?

Voters
150. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    22 14.67%
  • No

    125 83.33%
  • I don't know.

    3 2.00%
Page 20 of 47 FirstFirst ... 10181920212230 ... LastLast
Results 191 to 200 of 468

Thread: Do You Have a Right to a Job?

  1. #191
    Sage

    Join Date
    May 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:01 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    8,180

    Re: Do You Have a Right to a Job?

    Quote Originally Posted by soot View Post
    I think that when it comes to people who aren't employable (either by themselves or by others) we lose no matter what we do.

    We either have to:

    a.) Give them jobs

    b.) Maintain them on welfare

    c.) Fight them like an invading ****ing army because if they have no means to provide for themslves and we don't provide for them they're going to turn to crime on a massive scale in the simple interest of self-preservation
    Systems that end up with masses being dependent on and exploited by the oligarchically wealthy/powerful always descend into unrest eventually. Always. Welfare doesn't change that outcome, it just prolongs the agonizing, grinding march toward that outcome. Because in a welfare state, everyone remains dependent on that parental power-figure (Big Government/Big Business/Big Bank). And this just doesn't work long-term.

    I think that giving them jobs is the lesser of all possible evils.
    I think the least of all evils is to organically change our culture/attitude to actively pursue independence and self-sufficiency. All we've been doing is constantly looking up to some government or big powerful system to provide for our needs like we're children. This has been chronically dissatisfying to all involved.

  2. #192
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Last Seen
    10-24-13 @ 02:52 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    913

    Re: Do You Have a Right to a Job?

    Quote Originally Posted by soot View Post
    If that's the way its being taken then I have a problem with it too.

    That's why I've tried to be clear all along that that is not how I take it for the purpose of this discussion.



    I think that when it comes to people who aren't employable (either by themselves or by others) we lose no matter what we do.

    We either have to:

    a.) Give them jobs

    b.) Maintain them on welfare

    c.) Fight them like an invading ****ing army because if they have no means to provide for themslves and we don't provide for them they're going to turn to crime on a massive scale in the simple interest of self-preservation

    And we're talking about millions of people here.

    I think that giving them jobs is the lesser of all possible evils.

    At least we (society) get something back on our investment in them, even if it's only the simple satisfaction of not giving them something for nothing while we have to work for everything we have (or most of us do anyhow, some are just born rich but I don't think there's any crime in that and I would certainly take the job if I could get it).
    Isn't there a fourth option of encouraging them to obtain the skills necessary to become employable?

    It shouldn't be all stick but there is no reason to make it all carrot either. I'm not opposed to giving people the tools to improving their lives but, after that, it's all on them to make use of those tools. We already provide the unemployable a substantial amount of opportunities to improve their skill set. I don't think allowing them to coast does them any real favors.

  3. #193
    Pragmatist
    AlabamaPaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Alabama
    Last Seen
    12-08-17 @ 11:17 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    8,834

    Re: Do You Have a Right to a Job?

    Quote Originally Posted by Dapper Andy View Post
    Isn't there a fourth option of encouraging them to obtain the skills necessary to become employable?

    It shouldn't be all stick but there is no reason to make it all carrot either. I'm not opposed to giving people the tools to improving their lives but, after that, it's all on them to make use of those tools. We already provide the unemployable a substantial amount of opportunities to improve their skill set. I don't think allowing them to coast does them any real favors.
    The fourth option might be to enact policies that encourage employers to move and or return to the country that could utilize their skills in a productive endeavor...
    I don't often change my signature, but this was just too over the top to let anyone forget with what this country is up against...
    Quote Originally Posted by James D Hill View Post
    I am for gay marriage because it ticks off Jesus freaks and social conservatives. Gays are also good voters because the vote for my side so I fight next to them.

  4. #194
    Sage
    Mach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Texas
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    11,438

    Re: Do You Have a Right to a Job?

    That's not really a right to employment though, like most socialist nonsense its a gross distortion. That's a right to force other people to pay you for something, distorting the market, disincentivizing self-direction, etc.

    Americans do have a right to employment already, a freedom that was not enjoyed in centuries past, one of the things that makes our nation and nations like it, so incredibley ****ing awesome.
    What they do not have is the right to force someone else to pay them (well unions have that legal right, mother****ers, but its corrupt and unethical).

    Again, Americans are free to employ themselves. They can call it a job, give themselves a fancy title, and pay themselves a salary, etc.
    They do NOT have the right to force someone else to hire them...which is what the OP is about.

    So yes, we have a right to employment, and the OP not really asking for just that is it.

  5. #195
    Sage
    Medusa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Turkey
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:17 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    38,015

    Re: Do You Have a Right to a Job?

    so where is the liberitarianist spirit ?





    from the link
    "Without a steady, good-paying job, it is impossible to satisfy all other needs."
    "Sovereignty is not given, it is taken." ATATÜRK

  6. #196
    versus the world
    Surtr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    The greatest planet in the world.
    Last Seen
    06-10-14 @ 03:54 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    7,017

    Re: Do You Have a Right to a Job?

    Quote Originally Posted by X Factor View Post
    Surfing the net, I came across this.



    The Right to a job | Socialist Equality Party

    Interesting point of view. What do you think? Is having a job a right?

    Adding the poll right now. Answers will be yes, no and I don't know.
    No. There is no right to a job.
    I love the NSA. It's like having a secret fan-base you will never see, but they're there, watching everything you write and it makes me feel all warm and fuzzy inside knowing that I may be some person's only form of unconstitutional entertainment one night.

  7. #197
    Sage
    Gaius46's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    New York
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:24 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    8,443

    Re: Do You Have a Right to a Job?

    Quote Originally Posted by ernst barkmann View Post
    OK, let’s see what they had to say and put this question to rest. Let’s ask James Madison, the Father of the Constitution, Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton. Could they possibly shed any light on this?

    “With respect to the two words ‘general welfare,’ I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators.” – James Madison in letter to James Robertson

    “[Congressional jurisdiction of power] is limited to certain enumerated objects, which concern all the members of the republic, but which are not to be attained by the separate provisions of any.” – James Madison, Federalist 14

    “The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined . . . to be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce.” – James Madison, Federalist 45

    “If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one, subject to particular exceptions.” – James Madison, 1792

    “The Constitution allows only the means which are ‘necessary,’ not those which are merely ‘convenient,’ for effecting the enumerated powers. If such a latitude of construction be allowed to this phrase as to give any non-enumerated power, it will go to every one, for there is not one which ingenuity may not torture into a convenience in some instance or other, to some one of so long a list of enumerated powers. It would swallow up all the delegated powers, and reduce the whole to one power, as before observed” – Thomas Jefferson, 1791

    “Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated.” – Thomas Jefferson, 1798

    There you have it. James Madison, the Constitution’s author and Thomas Jefferson the author of the Declaration of Independence, specifically say that Congressional powers are to be limited and defined – unlike most modern interpretations!

    Admittedly, Jefferson and Madison were not our only Founders. These two were strict constitutionalists who feared the potential strength of any government. So let’s look at another Founder’s opinion—Alexander Hamilton who historically saw it in a somewhat looser vain.

    “This specification of particulars [the 18 enumerated powers of Article I, Section 8] evidently excludes all pretension to a general legislative authority, because an affirmative grant of special powers would be absurd as well as useless if a general authority was intended.” – Alexander Hamilton, Federalist 83

    Hamilton uncategorically states that all congressional powers are enumerated and that the very existence of these enumerations alone makes any belief that Congress has full and general legislative power to act as it desires nonsensical. If such broad congressional power had been the original intent, the constitutionally specified powers would have been worthless. In other words, why even enumerate any powers at all if the General Welfare clause could trump them?

    “No legislative act … contrary to the Constitution can be valid. To deny this would be to affirm that the deputy is greater than his principal; that the servant is above his master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people themselves; that men acting by virtue of powers may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid.” – Alexander Hamilton, Federalist 78

    In short, Hamilton tells us that since the powers of Congress are enumerated and limit Congress to those powers, any assumed authority outside those specified that don’t have a direct relation to those explicit powers must be contrary to the Constitution and therefore — unconstitutional.

    From the proverbial horses mouths to your own eyes — the all-encompassing General Welfare Clause is not as all encompassing as our current “leaders” would have us believe. In no way does that one phrase grant unlimited power to the Federal government rather it pertains only to those enumerated powers that can and ought to be applied universally and in general to the several states.






    this comes into play if the government used force to make business create jobs for people, or force business to hire people.

    government has no authority to force you to do things, if you have not violated the law.






    the constitution is written to limit governments only, they are not written for business or people.

    limiting government is why we have a constitution to to prevent their over reach of power, ....their powers are few and defined.

    as state by the founders:"With respect to the two words ‘general welfare,’ I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators.” – James Madison in letter to James Robertson.

    “If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one, subject to particular exceptions.” – James Madison, 1792

    Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated.” – Thomas Jefferson, 1798

    As I said before at the end of the day what Madison and Jefferson wrote in their personal correspondence and what appeared in the Federalist Papers is almost completely irrelevant as far as the framers intent is concerned. What matters - the ONLY thing that matters - is what's in the document that states the ratified. The stated ratified the Constitution and only the Constitution. They did not ratify the Federalist or Jefferson and Madison's letters. The Constitution means what it says.

    And btw, Hamilton changed his mind after the Constitution was ratified and lobbied for an expansive view of the general welfare clause that both Washington and Adams agreed with.

    Joseph Story, perhaps the most influential early interpreter of the Constitution, advocated an expansive view of the general welfare clause.

    Personally I'm on the fence. I'd like to think that the general welfare isn't expansive but I'm not sure that it isn't
    Don't be a grammar nazi - Marcus Aurelius, Meditations, Book 1 #7

  8. #198
    Mixed Government advocate
    Master PO's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    93,000,000 miles from Earth where its very Hot
    Last Seen
    11-30-17 @ 01:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    31,331

    Re: Do You Have a Right to a Job?

    Quote Originally Posted by Gaius46 View Post
    As I said before at the end of the day what Madison and Jefferson wrote in their personal correspondence and what appeared in the Federalist Papers is almost completely irrelevant as far as the framers intent is concerned. What matters - the ONLY thing that matters - is what's in the document that states the ratified. The stated ratified the Constitution and only the Constitution. They did not ratify the Federalist or Jefferson and Madison's letters. The Constitution means what it says.

    And btw, Hamilton changed his mind after the Constitution was ratified and lobbied for an expansive view of the general welfare clause that both Washington and Adams agreed with.

    Joseph Story, perhaps the most influential early interpreter of the Constitution, advocated an expansive view of the general welfare clause.

    Personally I'm on the fence. I'd like to think that the general welfare isn't expansive but I'm not sure that it isn't
    i think your forgetting something, the federalist papers, were written before the constitution was ratified, explaining the constitution to the people, and they were used by the state legislators, to make their decisions on passing the constitution.

    to say government is not limited and has the power to do anything under the general welfare , is incorrect, and i know of no libertarian, who believes government is unlimited.

  9. #199
    Sage
    Gaius46's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    New York
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:24 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    8,443

    Re: Do You Have a Right to a Job?

    Quote Originally Posted by ernst barkmann View Post
    i think your forgetting something, the federalist papers, were written before the constitution was ratified, explaining the constitution to the people, and they were used by the state legislators, to make their decisions on passing the constitution.

    to say government is not limited and has the power to do anything under the general welfare , is incorrect, and i know of no libertarian, who believes government is unlimited.
    My understanding is that the Federalist was important in NY but not really anywhere else. It was published in NY, not widely available outside of NY, and before the series was even completed the Constitution was well on the way to being ratified - 5 of the 9 states required for ratification had ratified by the end of January and the Federalist was started at the end of the previous October so perhaps half the series was done by then. So to say that the states took the Federalist arguments into account when they ratified is a debatable point.

    I don't believe in unlimited government. I believe in a very limited government at both the Federal and State levels. But my belief isn't what we're discussing. We're discussing what the Constitution means and it means what it
    means regardless of our individual belief systems.
    Last edited by Gaius46; 04-26-13 at 12:26 AM.
    Don't be a grammar nazi - Marcus Aurelius, Meditations, Book 1 #7

  10. #200
    Gradualist

    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Last Seen
    09-25-17 @ 12:48 PM
    Lean
    Socialist
    Posts
    34,949
    Blog Entries
    6

    Re: Do You Have a Right to a Job?

    Being a socialist i believe one has the right to a job and many more things as well.


Page 20 of 47 FirstFirst ... 10181920212230 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •