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 47 of 47 FirstFirst ... 37454647
Results 461 to 468 of 468

Thread: Do You Have a Right to a Job?

  1. #461
    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
    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.
    What I mean is to make a threat of violence against someone, or what would commonly be considered to be assault.

    Hard to even think of it in practice or as a talking point when you can't answer the above questions.

    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.
    I believe I have gotten down to specifics. To make threats of violence or to actually commit violence against other people should be against the law. I'm not sure how much more specific you'd like me to be.

    You don't think uncontrolled prostitution is a health threat?
    Someone engaged in prostitution is not making a threat of violence against anyone else. They are not committing assault. So, no, it's not the same.

    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.
    I too, believe I have to follow the law or be prepared to face the consequences. I am simply suggesting the law be changed and offering a just alternative.

    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.
    Agreed.

    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?
    No, they are not the INITIATION of violence. They are in a RESPONSE to a harm done by the tortfeasor.

    If not, what's to stop the loser from simply not paying?
    Once the damages have been awarded, a title transfer occurs, in which some of the tortfeasor's assets transfer to the successful plaintiff.

  2. #462
    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
    What I mean is to make a threat of violence against someone, or what would commonly be considered to be assault.
    But your "new law" opens up such a wide range of new possibilities that using the old definitions just won't cut it. The guy walking down the street with a bomb is just as much a threat to anyone within given range, depending on the size of the bomb, as the man pointing the gun at someone. In fact, as we've all recently seen, the bomber is even more of a potential threat. Someone with a cache of nerve gas even worse than that, someone with a nuke is another step up. According you current rules, none of these are actionable and your "new law" doesn't make them actionable as far as I can tell.


    Quote Originally Posted by Federalist View Post
    I believe I have gotten down to specifics. To make threats of violence or to actually commit violence against other people should be against the law. I'm not sure how much more specific you'd like me to be.
    See above.


    Quote Originally Posted by Federalist View Post
    Someone engaged in prostitution is not making a threat of violence against anyone else. They are not committing assault. So, no, it's not the same.
    Of course it's the same, given the right circumstances. What if the prostitute has AIDS?


    Quote Originally Posted by Federalist View Post
    I too, believe I have to follow the law or be prepared to face the consequences. I am simply suggesting the law be changed and offering a just alternative.
    I'm not so sure how "just" it is. That's what we're still discussing.


    Quote Originally Posted by Federalist View Post
    No, they are not the INITIATION of violence. They are in a RESPONSE to a harm done by the tortfeasor.

    Once the damages have been awarded, a title transfer occurs, in which some of the tortfeasor's assets transfer to the successful plaintiff.
    And if the tortfeasor is unavailable, bankrupt, or whatever - then what? The plaintiff is just screwed? That's a good plan for societal safety.
    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

  3. #463
    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
    But your "new law" opens up such a wide range of new possibilities that using the old definitions just won't cut it. The guy walking down the street with a bomb is just as much a threat to anyone within given range, depending on the size of the bomb, as the man pointing the gun at someone.
    I would agree that a person with a bomb who enters another's property (a street) where bombs are forbidden could very well be considered up to no good. The property owner would be within his rights to respond appropriately.

    In fact, as we've all recently seen, the bomber is even more of a potential threat. Someone with a cache of nerve gas even worse than that, someone with a nuke is another step up. According you current rules, none of these are actionable and your "new law" doesn't make them actionable as far as I can tell.

    See above.
    So you think it is justified to initiate violence against someone who amasses a stockpile of nerve gas or nukes? I think that I could be convinced that this would be justified, since the assumption must be that they intend to engage in mass destruction.

    Of course it's the same, given the right circumstances. What if the prostitute has AIDS?
    A prostitute who knows he has AIDS and doesn't tell his client IS harming his client. This would of course be actionable.

    I'm not so sure how "just" it is. That's what we're still discussing.
    I'm sure that we can agree that it is wrong to initiate violence against people who have not initiated (or made threats to initiate) violence against other people or their property. The trick is figuring out how to apply this principle as consistently as possible. I think my position applies this principle more consistently than yours.

    And if the tortfeasor is unavailable, bankrupt, or whatever - then what? The plaintiff is just screwed? That's a good plan for societal safety.
    Isn't that the case now as well?

  4. #464
    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 would agree that a person with a bomb who enters another's property (a street) where bombs are forbidden could very well be considered up to no good. The property owner would be within his rights to respond appropriately.
    Sorry, I don't buy into a world where streets are owned by individuals.


    Quote Originally Posted by Federalist View Post
    So you think it is justified to initiate violence against someone who amasses a stockpile of nerve gas or nukes? I think that I could be convinced that this would be justified, since the assumption must be that they intend to engage in mass destruction.
    I think a lot of things endanger the public, including nerve gas and nukes. That's one of the points of contention I mentioned earlier, what is actually considered a "threat". You flat out rejected a threat to society, earlier.


    Quote Originally Posted by Federalist View Post
    A prostitute who knows he has AIDS and doesn't tell his client IS harming his client. This would of course be actionable.
    But only in tort. Most prostitutes couldn't afford the cost of a defeat and may not survive to pay it in any case. Not so good for the client - or society since the client could spread it without even knowing. Another example of threat that's apparently not covered in your "new law".


    Quote Originally Posted by Federalist View Post
    I'm sure that we can agree that it is wrong to initiate violence against people who have not initiated (or made threats to initiate) violence against other people or their property. The trick is figuring out how to apply this principle as consistently as possible. I think my position applies this principle more consistently than yours.
    Does this mean taxation stops? That'll never work.


    Quote Originally Posted by Federalist View Post
    Isn't that the case now as well?
    Not really, no. Many, many things that businesses could be doing that would be harmful are outlawed now, no tort required to limit their potentially adverse effects on society. With your system, we're back to the loaded gun scenario. If you don't consider certain acts to be inherently violent then no action can be taken until harm is done, at which point it's too late.
    Last edited by MoSurveyor; 05-10-13 at 10:10 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

  5. #465
    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
    Sorry, I don't buy into a world where streets are owned by individuals.
    They have to be owned by some individual or group of individuals.

    I think a lot of things endanger the public, including nerve gas and nukes. That's one of the points of contention I mentioned earlier, what is actually considered a "threat". You flat out rejected a threat to society, earlier.
    You made a good case for nukes and nerve gas. But my fundamental principle is that I consider it unjustified to INITIATE violence against a person who has not initiated (or said he is going to initiate) violence against others.

    But only in tort. Most prostitutes couldn't afford the cost of a defeat and may not survive to pay it in any case. Not so good for the client - or society since the client could spread it without even knowing. Another example of threat that's apparently not covered in your "new law".
    And your response to this risk is to initiate violence. How about simple liability insurance? Then the prostitute COULD afford the cost of a defeat.

    Does this mean taxation stops? That'll never work.
    Yeah, I know. Who would pick the cotton?

    Not really, no. Many, many things that businesses could be doing that would be harmful are outlawed now, no tort required to limit their potentially adverse effects on society. With your system, we're back to the loaded gun scenario. If you don't consider certain acts to be inherently violent then no action can be taken until harm is done, at which point it's too late.
    That's the way it always works. FIRST the crime is committed, and THEN prosecution occurs. That damage is ALWAYS done first.

  6. #466
    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
    They have to be owned by some individual or group of individuals.
    I suppose all of society is "a group of individuals" but I'm sure that's not what you had in mind.


    Quote Originally Posted by Federalist View Post
    You made a good case for nukes and nerve gas. But my fundamental principle is that I consider it unjustified to INITIATE violence against a person who has not initiated (or said he is going to initiate) violence against others.
    Then the guy with the gun is fine as long as he keeps his mouth shut? That's not what you were saying earlier.


    Quote Originally Posted by Federalist View Post
    And your response to this risk is to initiate violence. How about simple liability insurance? Then the prostitute COULD afford the cost of a defeat.
    So you're going to violently force someone to do something so they can sell their services??? I guess we still have a LOT of ground to cover.


    Quote Originally Posted by Federalist View Post
    Yeah, I know. Who would pick the cotton?
    Please. I can see how far you've really thought about this - not very.


    Quote Originally Posted by Federalist View Post
    That's the way it always works. FIRST the crime is committed, and THEN prosecution occurs. That damage is ALWAYS done first.
    But the laws include more than just fines. Do you really not understand the way the EPA and OSHA work? Do you now get how speed limits control the speeds at which people drive? Well, of course you don't. Even after having explained in what I thought was good detail, you still don't get the idea of all of us playing off the same page of music. *shakes head*
    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. #467
    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
    I suppose all of society is "a group of individuals" but I'm sure that's not what you had in mind.
    No, by the owner, I meant the individual(s) who have the right to exclude others from the property. Right now it's the government, but it doesn't have to be.

    Then the guy with the gun is fine as long as he keeps his mouth shut? That's not what you were saying earlier.
    No, he is explicitly threatening someone, namely the guy he's accosting.

    So you're going to violently force someone to do something so they can sell their services??? I guess we still have a LOT of ground to cover.
    No I'm not going to violently force someone to do anything. But a patron who wishes to be protected could choose to only use prostitutes with adequate liability insurance, and possibly certified as disease free.

    Please. I can see how far you've really thought about this - not very.
    Either something is ethical or it's not. "It won't work" is not an ethical stance. That would be like those who oppose slavery being told, "Abolition won't work. Who would pick the cotton?"

    But the laws include more than just fines. Do you really not understand the way the EPA and OSHA work? Do you now get how speed limits control the speeds at which people drive?
    Road owners have every right to specify how their roads are used.

    Well, of course you don't. Even after having explained in what I thought was good detail, you still don't get the idea of all of us playing off the same page of music. *shakes head*
    I'm sorry, but I can't justify initiating violence against someone who has not harmed anyone else. But I don't think it's actually necessary. If people know they are going to be held responsible for the harm they cause others, they will take the necessary measures to prevent doing harm to others.

  8. #468
    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
    No, by the owner, I meant the individual(s) who have the right to exclude others from the property. Right now it's the government, but it doesn't have to be.

    Road owners have every right to specify how their roads are used.
    I don't want any individual dictating or fleecing me for access to my own property. I'm just fine paying taxes to maintain the roads and allow my cousin George from Canada to use any street in the country at no cost to him.


    Your dodge of environmental and safety regulations is noted.


    Quote Originally Posted by Federalist View Post
    No, he is explicitly threatening someone, namely the guy he's accosting.
    We have yet to determine what the parameters are for a "threat". You keep adding and taking away caveats.


    Quote Originally Posted by Federalist View Post
    No I'm not going to violently force someone to do anything. But a patron who wishes to be protected could choose to only use prostitutes with adequate liability insurance, and possibly certified as disease free.
    And if they don't then STDs get passed around to the whole population. And it's not just a matter of prostitution - there are many, many thing that won't get covered in a private enterprise world, many of them public health issues. It's simply not profitable to keep track of diseases all over the country like the CDC does, for example.


    Quote Originally Posted by Federalist View Post
    Either something is ethical or it's not. "It won't work" is not an ethical stance. That would be like those who oppose slavery being told, "Abolition won't work. Who would pick the cotton?"
    Not the same at all but, hey, you can show me where long-term, expensive, voluntary plans have managed to be carried out. I don't know of many off hand but I'm sure you have a whole list of multi-billion dollar, multi-year projects that have almost no commercial value being completed without the government - so start posting them.


    Quote Originally Posted by Federalist View Post
    I'm sorry, but I can't justify initiating violence against someone who has not harmed anyone else. But I don't think it's actually necessary. If people know they are going to be held responsible for the harm they cause others, they will take the necessary measures to prevent doing harm to others.
    Only if the can't make money from it.

    How did that work for Intel's and Microsoft's competitors in the past decade? How did that work for all the Superfund sites around the country and the businesses that made those toxic disasters? How did that work out for the families of the BP workers in the Gulf and all the people and businesses effected by that mess? The tobacco companies are an excellent example of a proactive campaign to $ell, $ell, $ell and damn the consequences.

    Don't kid yourself. There's lots and lots of evidence that what you're proposing doesn't work. I've just named a few of the more obvious and recent ones. Do you honestly think the EPA and OSHA cropped up on the whim of a politician? Get real. Tort law isn't some new invention, you know, and it didn't stop squat. There were serious issues that had to be addressed because business didn't give a crap as long as they were making their profits. They still don't give a crap but the risk of cheating is bigger now and it's not easy to dodge government inspections, either.
    Last edited by MoSurveyor; 05-10-13 at 06:59 PM.
    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 47 of 47 FirstFirst ... 37454647

Posting Permissions

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