• 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
Being a socialist i believe one has the right to a job and many more things as well.
If there is a right to a job then it means that someone else has a legally enforceable obligation to provide a job and wages. Who would you say has a legal obligation to provide others with a job and pay?
 
Only if you think people have a right to eat, to shelter and to clothe themselves.
Do they have a right to demand that others feed, shelter, and clothe them. Does this imply that someone out there has a legal obligation to feed, shelter, and clothe them?
 
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.

read the arguments of states during the ratification process and they state the same things government is limited, and its duties enumerated.

i do no understand your last sentence, you agree government is very limited, but you believe government can use the general welfare to do anything they wish?
 
Last edited:
read the arguments of states during the ratification process and they state the same things government is limited, and its duties enumerated.

i do no understand your last sentence, you agree government is very limited, but you believe government can use the general welfare to do anything they wish?

I haven't read the much on the state ratification votes but I will. Thanks.

I agree that government should be limited. But I also believe that the Constitution, and all legal documents, mean what they say (I take Antonin Scalia's view of interpretation) and if the Constitution, when read literally, doesn't agree with my view of the world then my view doesn't matter.
 
Do they have a right to demand that others feed, shelter, and clothe them. Does this imply that someone out there has a legal obligation to feed, shelter, and clothe them?

Why would someone else have to be required to do that? The federal government has the ability to hire anyone unemployed without taxation.
 
I almost believe we should have a right to a job. It is such a waste of human lives and economic output to pay people to stay at home when they could work and contribute to the society.

Its really horrible to see the situation in for instance southern Europe where getting employment is nearly impossible and young people have no future. Generally, there wouldn't have been this much problems in the first place if we let the market create new jobs. But most societies have made it way too hard to create new jobs.
 
Why would someone else have to be required to do that? The federal government has the ability to hire anyone unemployed without taxation.

And where will the federal government acquire food, shelter, and clothing to give to these people?
 
And where will the federal government acquire food, shelter, and clothing to give to these people?

They are already paying for them, except they don't work, and most of the budget is not going to unemployed.
 
They are already paying for them, except they don't work, and most of the budget is not going to unemployed.

Too many theys and thems for me to understand exactly what you mean.
 
And where will the federal government acquire food, shelter, and clothing to give to these people?

The federal government purchases things all the time, they supply people with the money and they purchase them from the private sector.
 
The federal government purchases things all the time, they supply people with the money and they purchase them from the private sector.

And where does the federal government get the goods that it exchanges for the food, shelter, and clothing that it acquires from the private sector?
 
If there is a right to a job then it means that someone else has a legally enforceable obligation to provide a job and wages. Who would you say has a legal obligation to provide others with a job and pay?

In the current system we have if one could not find a job then i believe the state has an obligation.
 
The constitutional experts from the (not quite) right are rigid until it counts.
Thatcher was no fan of the common man.

Thatcher was British and not American and has no oath to the Constitution or any responceablity to it.
 
Isn't there a fourth option of encouraging them to obtain the skills necessary to become employable?

You mean like maybe provide them with 12 years or so of public education, then make funding available so they can borrow at a (relatively) reasonable rate in order to continue their education at the post secondary level, maybe incentivize service in the military by including educational funding as a "fringe benefit", add to that the ability to learn a trade while serving the country in case book learnin' ain't their thing, and all the while maintain a national dialog related to the importance of education in getting ahead?

Don't take this as me being flip or obnoxious because that's not the way I intend it.

But when you consider those things, and the many others which we do in this country already to provide people with skills or otherwise facilitate their getting a job I'd be curious how much more you think we can do or how successful any additional actions would be.

Something like 14% of Americans don't even have a high school diploma and dropout rate in recent years has been in the neighborhood of 7% or 8%.

It's one of those "you can lead a horse to water" type situations.

The "tools" are there, but some people can't or won't make use of them.
 
I almost believe we should have a right to a job. It is such a waste of human lives and economic output to pay people to stay at home when they could work and contribute to the society.

Its really horrible to see the situation in for instance southern Europe where getting employment is nearly impossible and young to be employedpeople have no future. Generally, there wouldn't have been this much problems in the first place if we let the market create new jobs. But most societies have made it way too hard to create new jobs.

The solution for Southern Europe would be to allow employers to fire unproductive workers so those who do want to be employed can more easily be hired.
 
Why would someone else have to be required to do that? The federal government has the ability to hire anyone unemployed without taxation.

Something from nothing? No, most conservatives don't buy this. Most conservatives believe that anything a government funds works like a tax, whether retrospective, prospective, or direct.

Most liberals appear to think however that government has the means to buy anything without creating any tax-like burden on anyone, or even more erroneously, that whatever burden their expenditures creates will somehow just come from those greedy super-rich bastards.

Even if government were a bottomless piggybank, the way fiscal liberals seem to think, people still would not have a right to be furnished with a job by the external.
 
Last edited:
Being a socialist i believe one has the right to a job and many more things as well.

Please clarify though. In the non-socialist state of the U.S., we have the right to a job. Self employment.
Do you mean by "right to a job", that everyone collectively must involuntarily pay for anyone who claims to "want a job", if technically they currently do not have a job?

Because that is the right to force other people to pay you...
 
Back
Top Bottom