• 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
Whoa, whoa, whoa....

You mean to tell me that people can exist apart from corporations? How dare you!

How did our ancestors ever survive before others employed them and paid them money?

Sent from my Nokia Lumia 920 using Board Express
 
This really is correct, because it accounts for human psychology, which is something modern macroeconomic monetary theorists neglect like crazy. They are so stratospherically separated from actual human experience that they are cannot possibly fathom the demotivating effect of being entitled to a livelihood.

Impressive! I nominate this for post of the month.
Sent from my Nokia Lumia 920 using Board Express
 
Employment is a specific, literal contract.

...A contract that can have many terms, conditions, and requirements, or a part of a larger, still more complex contract.

Not a "price you pay for living in a free society social contract" BS.

There is no price for living in a free society, by taking part in it and taking advantage of the fruits provided by it, you are signing a contract to adhere to that society's laws.

An example of people discovering they can vote themselves money from the treasury, basically.

The horrors of democracy, to be sure. [/sarcasm]

Either it takes the form of any other contract which includes negotiation of terms, offer and acceptance/denial, or it takes the form of welfare.

You seem to be hung up on the idea that because I can refuse employment, or there can be stipulations to becoming employed, it cannot be a right.

This is a bit like assuming that free speech can't be a right unless it exist in some absolute form, free of any sort of interference or moderation.

This is false.

Employment cannot take the form of a right to passively receive it from the external.

You've yet to really actually prove this point.

Yes, I can see that you are having immense difficulty computing the ways in which employment is inherently different than a positive right. In general, the only people with positive rights in this country are children. Not even welfare programs make what they hand out an actual positive right.

How silly of me. I didn't think to consider welfare.

...Or not.

Whether you have a right to a job or not doesn't hinge on what is considered a right at this very moment in society, shown by what people now consider to be a right and what they merely consider to be a form of government charity.

They can "mandate" whatever they want...

And they can even codify such a mandate as a right, which the government must provide if requested.

Glad you agree.

Positive rights are just a philosophical construct, same way natural rights are a philosophical construct.

...Legal construct, actually.

They don't exist in any literal sense...

Er, yes they do. They exist in the way people behave towards one another and how a government behaves towards and approaches it's citizenry.

So what we're doing right now is presenting our own philosophies and insinuating the other's is stupid.

No, what I'm doing is explaining to you that what does or doesn't make something a right is people agreeing this is or isn't, and then showing how employment can be a right because of this.

What you're doing is desperately trying to hold that, for some strange reason, the fact that a right is not absolute (that is to say, that it comes with terms and conditions) no longer makes it a right.

Bizarre logic on your part, to be sure.
 
That doesn't identify the assumptions you claim I am implicitly making or in what way they are invalid.

I asked you whether you consider it justifiable to initiate violence against a person who has harmed no person or no person's property, and you respond that you consider my implicit assumptions invalid.

So what are the implicit assumptions, and in what way are they invalid?
What you call it interpersonal violence, I call a community understanding and consensus. (almost exactly as shown in #312) I can't make it any more plain than that.
 
What you call it interpersonal violence, I call a community understanding and consensus. (almost exactly as shown in #312) I can't make it any more plain than that.

And do you consider it justifiable for some people in a community who have arrived at a consensus to initiate violence against a person who has harmed no person or no person's property?
 
And do you consider it justifiable for some people in a community who have arrived at a consensus to initiate violence against a person who has harmed no person or no person's property?
A man with his finger on the trigger and pointing a loaded gun at someone hasn't necessarily harmed anyone or anyone's property, either. Should he be allowed to pull the trigger before we try to disarm him or stop him in some other way?
 
A man with his finger on the trigger and pointing a loaded gun at someone hasn't necessarily harmed anyone or anyone's property, either. Should he be allowed to pull the trigger before we try to stop him?

Yes, I would consider it justified respond with violence to person in the process of committing assault.

So in my question above, when I say "harmed", lets also include those people who are in the act of doing so.
 
Yes, I would consider it justified respond with violence to person in the process of committing assault.

So in my question above, when I say "harmed", lets also include those people who are in the act of doing so.
But the gunman hasn't harmed anyone nor is he necessarily "in the act" of harming someone. There's no way anyone can know what he's going to do for sure, so according to your theory there's no merit to physically acting against him.


However, if you admit the gunman is a menace to society and that society has cause to physically limit his actions - what you call initiating interpersonal violence - then it's a pretty short step to everything else.
 
Last edited:
But the gunman hasn't harmed anyone nor is he necessarily "in the act" of harming someone. There's no way anyone can know what he's going to do for sure, so according to your theory there's no merit to physically acting against him.

No, I have already told you that once it is apparent that an attack is underway, my theory says that it is justified to respond.

However, if you admit the gunman is a menace to society and that society has cause to physically limit his actions - what you call initiating interpersonal violence - then it's a pretty short step to everything else.

I don't admit that the gunman is a menace to society. The gunman has initiated aggression against a victim.
 
But the gunman hasn't harmed anyone nor is he necessarily "in the act" of harming someone. There's no way anyone can know what he's going to do for sure, so according to your theory there's no merit to physically acting against him.


However, if you admit the gunman is a menace to society and that society has cause to physically limit his actions - what you call initiating interpersonal violence - then it's a pretty short step to everything else.

If you ban guns, society won't be able to do anything on the spot, physically stopping him, also you can tell when there is a guy like that if he pulls out a gun without being provoked sure he can possibly have shot one or two people but you can end a shooting spree right there.
 
You seem to be hung up on the idea that because I can refuse employment, or there can be stipulations to becoming employed, it cannot be a right.

I'm not hung up on it, I just keep having to repeat myself because no one advocating for this seems can figure it out.

If under this "right to a job" idea, employment still takes the form of a literal employment contract, with all the elements thereof, then it is that contract which specifies who has a right to what and tied to what responsibilities or under what conditions.

Having an absolute and positive right to something means zero conditions on your side of the contract.

This is a bit like assuming that free speech can't be a right unless it exist in some absolute form, free of any sort of interference or moderation.

No it's not, because free speech is a negative right.

You've yet to really actually prove this point.

I think you've just yet to grasp it.

No, what I'm doing is explaining to you that what does or doesn't make something a right is people agreeing this is or isn't, and then showing how employment can be a right because of this.

Well it is possible that people can agree on delusional things that don't make the least bit of sense.

What you're doing is desperately trying to hold that, for some strange reason, the fact that a right is not absolute (that is to say, that it comes with terms and conditions) no longer makes it a right.

Bizarre logic on your part, to be sure.

It's not bizarre logic at all. Employment is a two-man dance, and you can't guarantee one of those men a deal that both have to strike in voluntary mutual agreement.

We have a right to negotiate contracts with one another. We don't have a right to any other person accepting whatever we're offering.
 
Last edited:
How about looking for a job because if he gets a job he can't get fired from and has to be paid a certain amount of money he won't try to work at the job. If he gets a welfare check he is being paid for doing nothing and the other hard working people in either of those situations will think "hey joes not working and is getting paid around as much as we break our backs for!" Then, jobless or not slowly people will start doing what joe is doing, and when the majority of the country isn't working, the economy dies. If you don't think this can ever happen, look at Russia.


Okay, folks are misunderstanding what I meant all over the place.

I personally, me, am not talking about a guaranteed job you can't be fired from no matter how much you suck, where you get paid X regardless of productivity. That would, of course, be a disaster.

But if you look at our current situation (and don't be fooled by the official unemployment figures, they're not just skewed they're BS), there are a LOT of people who would be GLAD to have a decent full time job and would be GLAD to work hard at it, who are either unemployed or very very under-employed (part-time at min wage) because the economy sucketh and the job market sucketh even worse.

47% of Americans are so damn poor they can't pay Fed income tax.

That means something is wrong here in the richest nation on Earth.

Now me, I'd prefer to see some serious moves to jump-start the economy, encourage growth, and give employers strong reasons to create new hires and promotions though market activity, rather than some kind of government mandate imposing a job-rights package as a solution.
 
No, I have already told you that once it is apparent that an attack is underway, my theory says that it is justified to respond.

I don't admit that the gunman is a menace to society. The gunman has initiated aggression against a victim.
Then take your pick of any of thousands of scenarios where a person is a menace to society, or do you believe that to be impossible?
 
Then take your pick of any of thousands of scenarios where a person is a menace to society, or do you believe that to be impossible?

And 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 harmed no person or no person's property?
 
And 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 harmed no person or no person's property?
How about someone walking around with a bomb strapped to their body? How about personal possession of a nuclear warhead, nerve gas, or biological agent? (Note that many biological agents aren't even visible.) I can name off dozens if your imagination is running short. We have developed many very dangerous and very destructive mechanisms & devices - take your pick.
 
Last edited:
How about someone walking around with a bomb strapped to their body? How about personal possession of a nuclear warhead? I can name off dozens if your imagination is running short. We have developed many very dangerous and very destructive mechanisms - take your pick.

I don't think that fits Federalist's description of someone who has not harmed anyone. The existence of radioactive material or explosive material in a family's close proximity carries such a threat that it might fit the definition of assault. Similarly, I wind up and look like I'm about to punch you in the face and give you the impression you're about to be battered, that is assault, even though I technically have not caused you harm (yet).
 
I don't think that fits Federalist's description of someone who has not harmed anyone. The existence of radioactive material or explosive material in a family's close proximity carries such a threat that it might fit the definition of assault. Similarly, I wind up and look like I'm about to punch you in the face and give you the impression you're about to be battered, that is assault, even though I technically have not caused you harm (yet).
Of course it does. No harm has been done at all, not one single hair ruffled nor one penny of damages nor one penny stolen.


C-4 is plenty stable to not pose a inherent threat from instability.
The nuke doesn't have to be stored near anyone, so radioactivity from it is not an issue.
Ditto for nerve gas and contagions.
 
Last edited:
I'm not hung up on it, I just keep having to repeat myself because no one advocating for this seems can figure it out.

If under this "right to a job" idea, employment still takes the form of a literal employment contract, with all the elements thereof, then it is that contract which specifies who has a right to what and tied to what responsibilities or under what conditions.

Having an absolute and positive right to something means zero conditions on your side of the contract.

I didn't say you had an absolute right to a job at all, I said that you could (and should) have a right to a job.

No it's not, because free speech is a negative right.

...Which changes exactly what in regards to my point?

I think you've just yet to grasp it.

Clearly that's it. [/sarcasm]


Well it is possible that people can agree on delusional things that don't make the least bit of sense.

Ah, you're one of those.

It's not bizarre logic at all. Employment is a two-man dance, and you can't guarantee one of those men a deal that both have to strike in voluntary mutual agreement.

Employment between private individuals? Sure.

Not if it was a guaranteed right to be provided by the government.

We have a right to negotiate contracts with one another.

Says whom?

We don't have a right to any other person accepting whatever we're offering.

Again, says whom?
 
How about someone walking around with a bomb strapped to their body?

Such a person would most likely be prevented from entering anyone's property but his own.

How about personal possession of a nuclear warhead, nerve gas, or biological agent? (Note that many biological agents aren't even visible.) I can name off dozens if your imagination is running short. We have developed many very dangerous and very destructive mechanisms & devices - take your pick.

None of these are a danger in and of themselves, nor do any of them require the initiation of interpersonal violence.

And let's remember, we're not talking about nukes. We're talking about initiating interpersonal violence against a hairdresser.
 
Such a person would most likely be prevented from entering anyone's property but his own.
Why would he need to do that? Maybe he's just traveling from his apartment to his buddy's apartment. Is it still OK if he walks down the street?

None of these are a danger in and of themselves, nor do any of them require the initiation of interpersonal violence.

And let's remember, we're not talking about nukes. We're talking about initiating interpersonal violence against a hairdresser.
No, we're talking about a matter of policy and where you draw the line. Obviously you draw a line somewhere because the gunman pointing a loaded weapon at someone has hurt no one, has damaged no property, and has stolen nothing. Why is he not acceptable but owning a nuke or chemical weapon is acceptable? How is the guy with the bomb any different from the gunman?
 
Why would he need to do that? Maybe he's just traveling from his apartment to his buddy's apartment. Is it still OK if he walks down the street?

It would depend upon the owners of the street and the conditions they place upon those who use it. It is unlikely that they would allow people who have bombs strapped to themselves.


No, we're talking about a matter of policy and where you draw the line. Obviously you draw a line somewhere because the gunman pointing a loaded weapon at someone has hurt no one, has damaged no property, and has stolen nothing. Why is he not acceptable but owning a nuke or chemical weapon is acceptable? How is the guy with the bomb any different from the gunman?

I draw the line at the poi t where someone acts to initiate harm to the person or property of others.
 
It would depend upon the owners of the street and the conditions they place upon those who use it. It is unlikely that they would allow people who have bombs strapped to themselves.
Oh, yeah, I forgot the world of the Property Mongers. LOL! What? Did you read The Probability Broach at some point? That's a work of fiction, you know.


I draw the line at the poi t where someone acts to initiate harm to the person or property of others.
No you don't because no one is harmed by a pointed weapon, or any other kind of weapon, until it's been used.
 
Oh, yeah, I forgot the world of the Property Mongers. LOL! What? Did you read The Probability Broach at some point? That's a work of fiction, you know.


No you don't because no one is harmed by a pointed weapon, or any other kind of weapon, until it's been used.

Threatening someone with a weapon can be harmful, maybe not physically, but it is an act of violence.
 
Threatening someone with a weapon can be harmful, maybe not physically, but it is an act of violence.
Is this in respect to this fantasy world or are you talking about real life? If you're not talking about Fantasy Land then it doesn't matter to the conversation him and I are having. Didn't you just read, in Fantasy Land someone else gets to dictate what you can and cannot transport to and from your own home.
 
Last edited:
Oh, yeah, I forgot the world of the Property Mongers. LOL! What? Did you read The Probability Broach at some point? That's a work of fiction, you know.

No you don't because no one is harmed by a pointed weapon, or any other kind of weapon, until it's been used.

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.

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?
 
Back
Top Bottom