• 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
No Libertarian claims you have a right to have a material thing provided to you. There is no contradiction.

So guns should be handed to us?

[Edit] What I'm getting at is what I've stated below.
 
Please read the post you quoted. It in the very same post.

So how is it we act that "right to a job" means government handout, but "right to a gun" does not? Seems like a contradiction to me.
 
So guns should be handed to us?

How do you get "guns should be handed to us" from "no Libertarian claims you have a right to have a material thing provided to you"? That is . . . baffling.

It's not libertarians who are confusing; it's just you who are confused.
 
How do you get "guns should be handed to us" from "no Libertarian claims you have a right to have a material thing provided to you"? That is . . . baffling.

It's not libertarians who are confusing; it's just you who are confused.

No, mainstream libertarians are clearly confused if they think "right to a job" automatically has to mean government handout but "right to guns" does not.
 
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 think people should have a right to earn an income. A right to be employed? No. A right to operate a business? Yes. A right to own and profit from one's intellectual property? Yes. Trouble is our productivity culture is skewed toward people being employees and opening a business is a complicated undertaking weighed down by burdensome regulation, much of which is needless IMHO. I think we need to do more to encourage entrepreneurialism and I also support inventors rights and making patents easier for average people to secure without needing to be wealthy or somebody else's employee who in exchange for not being homeless gets to own 100% of the inventors' patent rights.
 
No, mainstream libertarians are clearly confused if they think "right to a job" automatically has to mean government handout but "right to guns" does not.

You're making no sense whatsoever. Which "libertarians" think a "right to a job" means a "government handout"? None that I am conscious of.
 
You're making no sense whatsoever. Which "libertarians" think a "right to a job" means a "government handout"? None that I am conscious of.

The very reason why they oppose the idea that we have a "right to jobs" is because they think it means government involvement. :roll:
 
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.
Anyone that believes everyone has a 'right' to a job should pool their resources to ensure those people also have a 'right' to a 'paycheck'. Typically...this argument always flows from those that wont be footing the bill for their ideological nonsense.
 
Guns are a good. Do we not have a right to guns? ;)
No...you have a Constitutionally guaranteed right to keep and bear arms. You do not have a right to have one provided for you. And of course...the key in your argument would be a 'right' that actually has a basis or foundation. The Constitution guarantees certain rights to US citizens...but ONLY to US citizens.
 
The very reason why they oppose the idea that we have a "right to jobs" is because they think it means government involvement. :roll:

When someone ELSE uses "right to jobs" to mean a government guarantee/involvement, such as in the OP:

Against mass unemployment, layoffs and workplace shutdowns, the working class must defend unconditionally the right to a job. Every worker who is laid off and all those entering the workforce must be guaranteed paid job training and employment.

Obviously libertarians oppose this. I cannot help how others use the term. If I say "right to a job" as I view it, which I actually never do without someone else saying it first, I would be referring to the liberty to seek and find employment.
 
Pepole should be garenteed the option of a job even if its flipping patties or cleaning roads . The old concept of you work and give back to your community you wont starve or live on the streets is a good one .
 
No...you have a Constitutionally guaranteed right to keep and bear arms. You do not have a right to have one provided for you.

And do you not have a right to pursue a job if you wish?

And of course...the key in your argument would be a 'right' that actually has a basis or foundation. The Constitution guarantees certain rights to US citizens...but ONLY to US citizens.

I am speaking of natural rights, not lawful rights.
 
Check out the citizen's dividend. An idea proposed by classical liberal (ie libertarian) Thomas Paine.

Hmm. Interesting. I do think its wrong for wealthy interests to rake in bank on limited and finite natural resources. Currently oil on public land requires the oil companies to pay a percentage of the profits to be developed but it all goes to Congress to spend, and not the American people (other than Alaska). I wonder what the fallout would be if the American people got to share profits form oil on public land instead of it all going to the government.

Then, is it also fair to ask radio, TV and satellite radio and TV companies to pay us for their use of the airways or airlines for using the sky that they don't own but profit from to pay a little to the public? I think one difference is the air and sky aren't being used up. Oil will eventually run out.
 
When someone ELSE uses "right to jobs" to mean a government guarantee/involvement, such as in the OP:



Obviously libertarians oppose this. I cannot help how others use the term. If I say "right to a job" as I view it, which I actually never do without someone else saying it first, I would be referring to the liberty to seek and find employment.

Which I happen to agree with. I just find it ironic that we say "right to bear arms" but say "no right to a job." When it comes to those with Statist mindsets, we need to clarify what exactly what a "right" means.
 
Which I happen to agree with. I just find it ironic that we say "right to bear arms" but say "no right to a job." When it comes to those with Statist mindsets, we need to clarify what exactly what a "right" means.

Dude, seriously. It's all about context. It's not difficult to understand.
 
So how is it we act that "right to a job" means government handout, but "right to a gun" does not? Seems like a contradiction to me.

I explained this already, and I believe most actual Libertarians would tell you the same thing.

Whether it be guns, jobs, pot or anything else the government should not have power to restrict you from having it. But that does not mean that you are entitled to receive it for free or without earning it.
 
Hmm. Interesting. I do think its wrong for wealthy interests to rake in bank on limited and finite natural resources. Currently oil on public land requires the oil companies to pay a percentage of the profits to be developed but it all goes to Congress to spend, and not the American people (other than Alaska). I wonder what the fallout would be if the American people got to share profits form oil on public land instead of it all going to the government.

I think we would have a much healthier economy if every state did what Alaska does.

Then, is it also fair to ask radio, TV and satellite radio and TV companies to pay us for their use of the airways or airlines for using the sky that they don't own but profit from to pay a little to the public? I think one difference is the air and sky aren't being used up. Oil will eventually run out.

I think there is an argument for a rent to be charged for those who monopolize the airwaves. I do believe the richest man in the world "earned" his wealth by doing just that.
 
Whether it be guns, jobs, pot or anything else the government should not have power to restrict you from having it. But that does not mean that you are entitled to receive it for free or without earning it.

My argument was essentially, if we treat guns and jobs the same way then why do neo-libertarians say we have a "right" to one but no "right" to the other. I know what they are really saying, I just think they have their words/definitions mixed up.
 
you have a right to seek employment, but you dont have a right to a job.

Exactly.

a right would mean a guarantee of a job

And here is where it gets confusing again. A "right" does not mean that you are guaranteed to receive that particular thing. It just means you are free to pursue it. Do you say you have a "right" to a gun?

A guarantee of a job by the government would be a privilege.
 
Dude, seriously. It's all about context. It's not difficult to understand.

Its all about using the correct definitions. I know libertarians obsess over definitions.

Neo-libertarians could at least be consistent.
 
Its all about using the correct definitions. I know libertarians obsess over definitions.

Neo-libertarians could at least be consistent.

They are, from my observation. You, however, are introducing a whole lot of needless confusion into it.
 
Exactly.



And here is where it gets confusing again. A "right" does not mean that you are guaranteed to receive that particular thing. It just means you are free to pursue it. Do you say you have a "right" to a gun?

A guarantee of a job by the government would be a privilege.

a right to a job, means one must be provided to you, .....i think the problem is right to a job, and right of a job

a person only has a right to seek employment, they have no right to a physical position of a job.
 
Back
Top Bottom