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 46 of 47 FirstFirst ... 3644454647 LastLast
Results 451 to 460 of 468

Thread: Do You Have a Right to a Job?

  1. #451
    Sage
    MoSurveyor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Last Seen
    04-13-17 @ 04:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    9,985

    Re: Do You Have a Right to a Job?

    Quote Originally Posted by Federalist View Post
    The threat of an attack IS an act of violence. That is the definition of assault. Assault is the threat, and battery is the actual attack.
    I'm aware of the "classical" definitions, though you may find modern law has adjusted those definitions in many cases.


    Everybody is a threat, didn't you know? You eat the same food I do and your environmental requirements are the same as mine. That means you are a threat to my survival because you and yours consume resources, which reduces the abundance of them for me and mine. If those resources should become scarce to the point of threatening your survival as you see it, then I have absolutely no doubt you would attack me and mine to secure those resources for you and yours.


    Quote Originally Posted by Federalist View Post
    So, to spell things out for you, in what scenarios would you consider it justifiable for some people in a community who have arrived at a consensus to initiate violence against a person who has not harmed, or threatened to harm, any person or person's property?
    When someone breaks the law or, (technically) in many cases, seems to have broken the law - because in our society that's what we live by, rule of law.
    Last edited by MoSurveyor; 05-06-13 at 07:10 AM.
    Mt. Rushmore: Three surveyors and some other guy.
    Life goes on within you and without you. -Harrison
    Hear the echoes of the centuries, Power isn't all that money buys. -Peart
    After you learn quantum mechanics you're never really the same again. -Weinberg

  2. #452
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Last Seen
    01-27-15 @ 11:37 AM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    8,247

    Re: Do You Have a Right to a Job?

    Quote Originally Posted by MoSurveyor View Post
    Everybody is a threat, didn't you know? You eat the same food I do and your environmental requirements are the same as mine. That means you are a threat to my survival because you and yours consume resources, which reduces the abundance of them for me and mine. If those resources should become scarce to the point of threatening your survival as you see it, then I have absolutely no doubt you would attack me and mine to secure those resources for you and yours.
    You're equivocating on the word threat. You know that earlier we were discussing a person making a threat against another, as in the act of assault, threatening an attack. We were talking about how the threat of attack is, in itself, a violent act, and would justify a violent response.

    When someone breaks the law or, (technically) in many cases, seems to have broken the law - because in our society that's what we live by, rule of law.
    When you say "rule of law" I presume you mean statutory law. So you're saying that violence is morally justified whenever a statute is broken?

    So you think that it is morally justified to use violence against a person who has harmed no one, but has simply violated a statute banning, say, possession of marijuana?

  3. #453
    Sage
    MoSurveyor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Last Seen
    04-13-17 @ 04:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    9,985

    Re: Do You Have a Right to a Job?

    Quote Originally Posted by Federalist View Post
    You're equivocating on the word threat. You know that earlier we were discussing a person making a threat against another, as in the act of assault, threatening an attack. We were talking about how the threat of attack is, in itself, a violent act, and would justify a violent response.
    There's no real difference in what I posted than what you're saying. It's all a theoretical matter of time of varying lengths - theoretical because in both cases there is no proof anything at all will happen.


    Quote Originally Posted by Federalist View Post
    When you say "rule of law" I presume you mean statutory law. So you're saying that violence is morally justified whenever a statute is broken?

    So you think that it is morally justified to use violence against a person who has harmed no one, but has simply violated a statute banning, say, possession of marijuana?
    According to you, laws cannot be enforced except by "interpersonal violence" so, by your own definition and if you want to believe in laws at all, then of course that's true. You've made a self-fulfilling circular argument so how could it be otherwise?
    Mt. Rushmore: Three surveyors and some other guy.
    Life goes on within you and without you. -Harrison
    Hear the echoes of the centuries, Power isn't all that money buys. -Peart
    After you learn quantum mechanics you're never really the same again. -Weinberg

  4. #454
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Last Seen
    01-27-15 @ 11:37 AM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    8,247

    Re: Do You Have a Right to a Job?

    Quote Originally Posted by MoSurveyor View Post
    According to you, laws cannot be enforced except by "interpersonal violence" so, by your own definition and if you want to believe in laws at all, then of course that's true. You've made a self-fulfilling circular argument so how could it be otherwise?
    I'm not sure I follow your line of argument.

    I asked you whether you think that it is morally justified to use violence against a person who has harmed no one, but has simply violated a statute banning, say, possession of marijuana?

    You respond that, according to me, laws [I assume you mean statute here] cannot be enforced except by interpersonal violence. Is this even a debatable question? How else would statutes be enforced? If person breaks a statute the police (armed men) arrest him. So, first, are you disputing that this is violence?

    Also, please explain what you mean when you say mine is a self-fulfilling circular argument. I am arguing this:

    A - It is wrong to initiate (or make threats to initiate) violence against other people and their property. (Technically, by "violence against", I mean any uninvited change to the integrity of a person's body or property.)

    B - Because we live in an imperfect world, sometimes violence is necessary. We therefore need to determine when violence is justified and when it isn't.

    C - I contend that the ONLY justification for violence is AS A RESPONSE to actual (or threats made) initiation of violence to another's body or property.

    D - All other violence (violence that is not a RESPONSE to initiated violence) is ITSELF the initiation of violence, and is therefore morally unjustified.

    E - I then use this argument to determine my support or opposition to any policy or statute. For example, a statute that establishes a punishment for the possession of marijuana would fall into this category. It is an initiation of violence against people who have not themselves harmed anyone.

    If you'd like to point out in what way my argument is circular, please do. I'm not seeing it.

  5. #455
    Sage
    Oozlefinch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    State of Jefferson
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 05:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    11,370

    Re: Do You Have a Right to a Job?

    I feel that every citizen and legal resident has the right to work. But that is not the same thing as saying they have a right to a job.

    By following that logic, everybody has the right to marriage, therefore it is the government's job to ensure they have a spouse.
    War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. - John Stuart Mill

  6. #456
    Sage
    MoSurveyor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Last Seen
    04-13-17 @ 04:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    9,985

    Re: Do You Have a Right to a Job?

    Quote Originally Posted by Federalist View Post
    I'm not sure I follow your line of argument.

    I asked you whether you think that it is morally justified to use violence against a person who has harmed no one, but has simply violated a statute banning, say, possession of marijuana?

    You respond that, according to me, laws [I assume you mean statute here] cannot be enforced except by interpersonal violence. Is this even a debatable question? How else would statutes be enforced? If person breaks a statute the police (armed men) arrest him. So, first, are you disputing that this is violence?

    Also, please explain what you mean when you say mine is a self-fulfilling circular argument.

    If you'd like to point out in what way my argument is circular, please do. I'm not seeing it.
    The way you presented your beliefs and worded your questions made it circular ...

    Quote Originally Posted by Federalist View Post
    I am arguing this:

    A - It is wrong to initiate (or make threats to initiate) violence against other people and their property. (Technically, by "violence against", I mean any uninvited change to the integrity of a person's body or property.)

    B - Because we live in an imperfect world, sometimes violence is necessary. We therefore need to determine when violence is justified and when it isn't.
    A & B contradict each other. It either is or isn't wrong. You can't have your cake and eat it, too. The only other interpretation I can see is you're trying to claim two wrongs make a right but that doesn't fly with me, either.


    Quote Originally Posted by Federalist View Post
    C - I contend that the ONLY justification for violence is AS A RESPONSE to actual (or threats made) initiation of violence to another's body or property.
    We've been through threats, already. Again, you have to make up your mind. Either threats justify violence or they don't - but you don't get to decide what a "threat" is. The victim of the threat is the only one that can decide that. Since I'm sure you won't agree with that assessment, we have our second point of contention.


    Quote Originally Posted by Federalist View Post
    D - All other violence (violence that is not a RESPONSE to initiated violence) is ITSELF the initiation of violence, and is therefore morally unjustified.

    E - I then use this argument to determine my support or opposition to any policy or statute. For example, a statute that establishes a punishment for the possession of marijuana would fall into this category. It is an initiation of violence against people who have not themselves harmed anyone.
    Just from points A-C you have left open a lot of ground, which is a large part of the problem. Without resolving those issues, it's difficult to move forward. However ...


    You seem to have avoided the larger concept of law, to get everyone on the same page (i.e., so everyone knows exactly where they stand) so we can move forward as a civilization. I may not like the laws you think we need, but I'm just as sure you won't like some of the laws I think we need. We need to come to a consensus, one way or another. Your generalizations don't answer how to do that. Even your example is poor because many people feel marijuana is a threat, or rather, that people that are high are a threat. I'm not saying I believe that but that doesn't change what other people believe about it. I don't particularly approve of "victimless crimes" but the ones who support those "crimes" don't see them as victimless at all. They believe gambling, prostitution, and certain drugs are a threat to society as a whole and them individually because of what those people often do. However, I don't see tax evasion as a victimless crime, either, where I'm sure you and many others do. Therein lies the rub.

    The result of that, to me, is that we have decided to be a society of laws. As such, whether I feel an action is a crime or not doesn't matter beyond my powers of persuasion to convince others of my position and, of course, my own vote. If we all decide by representation or direct vote that a given action is a crime then, whether individuals believe it's a crime or not, we should all abide by that decision - not because The Man will "come take us away" but because we have agreed to live in a lawful society.

    To me, that's the unwritten law people are breaking when they break the laws on the books. They have agreed to live in this society and to live by it's rules. In essence, they have violated their contract and the sentence is expulsion, though they can often "buy their way back in" by paying a fine, instead.
    Mt. Rushmore: Three surveyors and some other guy.
    Life goes on within you and without you. -Harrison
    Hear the echoes of the centuries, Power isn't all that money buys. -Peart
    After you learn quantum mechanics you're never really the same again. -Weinberg

  7. #457
    Sage
    jamesrage's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    A place where common sense exists
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 02:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    31,075

    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.

    I picked no.But at the same time the government should not be screwing over American workers by encouraging and allowing outsourcing or screwing American workers by allowing companies to subvert wages and working conditions by hiring foreign workers.
    "A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murder is less to fear"

    Cicero Marcus Tullius

  8. #458
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Last Seen
    01-27-15 @ 11:37 AM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    8,247

    Re: Do You Have a Right to a Job?

    Quote Originally Posted by MoSurveyor View Post
    A & B contradict each other. It either is or isn't wrong. You can't have your cake and eat it, too. The only other interpretation I can see is you're trying to claim two wrongs make a right but that doesn't fly with me, either.
    No, they don't contradict each other. Take a look at what I wrote:

    Quote Originally Posted by Federalist View Post
    A - It is wrong to initiate (or make threats to initiate) violence against other people and their property. (Technically, by "violence against", I mean any uninvited change to the integrity of a person's body or property.)

    B - Because we live in an imperfect world, sometimes violence is necessary. We therefore need to determine when violence is justified and when it isn't.
    It is wrong to INITIATE violence. Responding to initiated violence is not wrong. It is necessary to survival.

  9. #459
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Last Seen
    01-27-15 @ 11:37 AM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    8,247

    Re: Do You Have a Right to a Job?

    Quote Originally Posted by MoSurveyor View Post
    We've been through threats, already. Again, you have to make up your mind. Either threats justify violence or they don't - but you don't get to decide what a "threat" is. The victim of the threat is the only one that can decide that. Since I'm sure you won't agree with that assessment, we have our second point of contention.
    To threaten someone with violence is ITSELF an act of violence. Did we not agree on this?

    Just from points A-C you have left open a lot of ground, which is a large part of the problem. Without resolving those issues, it's difficult to move forward. However ...

    You seem to have avoided the larger concept of law, to get everyone on the same page (i.e., so everyone knows exactly where they stand) so we can move forward as a civilization.
    I am proposing a law, which I have stated several times. I am proposing a law that forbids the initiation (or making threats of initiation) of violence against the person and property of others. That is the law I am proposing.

    I may not like the laws you think we need, but I'm just as sure you won't like some of the laws I think we need. We need to come to a consensus, one way or another. Your generalizations don't answer how to do that. Even your example is poor because many people feel marijuana is a threat, or rather, that people that are high are a threat.
    You are equivocating on the word threat. My contention is that it is wrong to initiate violence or to make a threat that you will initiate violence. Prostitution "being a threat" to society has nothing at all to do with this. I am talking about a person making a threat that they are going to commit violence (either with words or by their actions).

    I'm not saying I believe that but that doesn't change what other people believe about it. I don't particularly approve of "victimless crimes" but the ones who support those "crimes" don't see them as victimless at all. They believe gambling, prostitution, and certain drugs are a threat to society as a whole and them individually because of what those people often do. However, I don't see tax evasion as a victimless crime, either, where I'm sure you and many others do. Therein lies the rub.

    The result of that, to me, is that we have decided to be a society of laws. As such, whether I feel an action is a crime or not doesn't matter beyond my powers of persuasion to convince others of my position and, of course, my own vote. If we all decide by representation or direct vote that a given action is a crime then, whether individuals believe it's a crime or not, we should all abide by that decision - not because The Man will "come take us away" but because we have agreed to live in a lawful society.

    To me, that's the unwritten law people are breaking when they break the laws on the books. They have agreed to live in this society and to live by it's rules. In essence, they have violated their contract and the sentence is expulsion, though they can often "buy their way back in" by paying a fine, instead.
    I am not suggesting that people break the law with impunity. I am proposing a change to the law.

  10. #460
    Sage
    MoSurveyor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Last Seen
    04-13-17 @ 04:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    9,985

    Re: Do You Have a Right to a Job?

    Quote Originally Posted by Federalist View Post
    To threaten someone with violence is ITSELF an act of violence. Did we not agree on this?
    Not completely, no. I tried to pin down exactly what you meant by that and you responded with a) "it's up to the owner of the street" (meaning I have no rights on the street other than those negotiated, which is worse than it is now), and b) essentially no comment once I pointed out neither nuclear bombs nor nerve gas had to be stored near people to be dangerous if used.


    Quote Originally Posted by Federalist View Post
    I am proposing a law, which I have stated several times. I am proposing a law that forbids the initiation (or making threats of initiation) of violence against the person and property of others. That is the law I am proposing.
    Hard to even think of it in practice or as a talking point when you can't answer the above questions.


    Quote Originally Posted by Federalist View Post
    You are equivocating on the word threat. My contention is that it is wrong to initiate violence or to make a threat that you will initiate violence. Prostitution "being a threat" to society has nothing at all to do with this. I am talking about a person making a threat that they are going to commit violence (either with words or by their actions).
    I'm not "equivocating" at all. If anything, I've been trying to show why the word and concept itself is flawed as an objective reality. If anything, you're the one equivocating because you won't get down to specifics. You're the one leaving this question in limbo.


    You don't think uncontrolled prostitution is a health threat?


    Quote Originally Posted by Federalist View Post
    I am not suggesting that people break the law with impunity. I am proposing a change to the law.
    I am aware of what your argument is but I don't think you're seeing the big picture, here.

    For the second (or was it the third?) time you asked, essentially, if I thought growing pot should be illegal and I responded the best way I know how given your previous lack of recognition of my responses - by showing that even if I agree it shouldn't be a crime, I still believe I have to follow the law or be prepared to face the consequences. So what I think about all your various "victimless crime" examples doesn't mean a damn thing unless the majority agrees with me, as well, in which case it's not a crime anymore.

    I've also tried to show there is at least a tacit agreement among citizens that we all follow the law as our part of the agreement we have with society as a whole and that we accept punishment as a violation of those laws. As part of that agreement, we all decide what is lawful and unlawful - together as a group - and agree to live with that decision whether we personally agree or not. If a person violates a contract what would you expect to happen? Aren't damages in a law suit also violence by your standards? If not, what's to stop the loser from simply not paying?
    Mt. Rushmore: Three surveyors and some other guy.
    Life goes on within you and without you. -Harrison
    Hear the echoes of the centuries, Power isn't all that money buys. -Peart
    After you learn quantum mechanics you're never really the same again. -Weinberg

Page 46 of 47 FirstFirst ... 3644454647 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
  •