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



I am speaking of natural rights, not lawful rights.
Pursuing a job does not equate to a right to HAVE a job. As for the 'natural' rights argument...thats just plain silliness. "Natural rights" are an ideological construct and nothing more.
 
Well to go against the grain since everyone here seems to be against the idea....

yes...everyone that wants a job should be gauranteed one.

The idea that people aren't working that want and can work is just ridiculous.
 
Well to go against the grain since everyone here seems to be against the idea....

yes...everyone that wants a job should be gauranteed one.

The idea that people aren't working that want and can work is just ridiculous.

what if you want to work, and there are no jobs, is someone force to make no for you?

what if you cant find one, is government duty now to find you one?

do you get to pick the type of job your want?

what if you want to work, but you suck at being a good employee, meaning your constantly late, dont work well with other people?

guarantee a job, does that mean if the private sector will not hire you government has too?

wanting a job, .....but being able to preform it property and get along with others and being responsible is another.
 
you have a right to seek employment, but you dont have a right to a job.

You have a right to seek religion, but you don't have the right to a religion.

a right to a gun would mean one would have to be provided for you free of charge.

The right to freedom of speech would mean that words would have to be provided to you free of charge.

a right to a job, means one must be provided to you

The right of the people to be secure in their houses and papers means a house and papers must be provided.
 
They are, from my observation.

They are not consistent when they use the word "right" the correct way when referring to guns, but then use it the wrong way (implying rights are same as privileges) when referring to jobs.
 
no you dont have a right to a gun, you have a right to bare one.

a right to a gun would mean one would have to be provided for you free of charge.

So you have the right to hold a gun but not to own it? Huh?
 
You have a right to seek religion, but you don't have the right to a religion.

you have a right to worship your god, you dont have a right to go to church or other religious institution



The right to freedom of speech would mean that words would have to be provided to you free of charge.

how does someone provide you with words to speak?


The right of the people to be secure in their houses and papers means a house and papers must be provided.

what?.......it means other people cannot go thru your pockets or house..IE property without a warrant.
 
So you have the right to hold a gun but not to own it? Huh?

you have a right to bare a firearm, meaning your free to purchase one for your use...if you chose to exercise that right.

but you dont have a right to have one, meaning someone else has to pay its cost , so it can be your personal property.
 
As for the 'natural' rights argument...thats just plain silliness. "Natural rights" are an ideological construct and nothing more.

And I am speaking from an ideological point-of-view.
 
Neo-libertarians...what is that?

It can either reference "libertarians" with neoconservative tendencies (which I know you guys aren't), or it could refer to right-libertarians in general.
 
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.

I am honestly at a loss on how to simplify this for you. Libertarians, largely beleive they should be treated the same. you should not be restricted from obtaining either on your own. Is that really so difficult to grasp?
 
you have a right to bare a firearm, meaning your free to purchase one for your use...if you chose to exercise that right.

Agreed.

but you dont have a right to have one, meaning someone else has to pay its cost , so it can be your personal property.

I DO have a right to HAVE one just as I have a right to pursue, freely obtain/purchase, and own anything that does not directly harm those around me.
 
you should not be restricted from obtaining either on your own.

Then so-called libertarians need to stop saying one is a right and the other is not.

Is that really so difficult to grasp?

I have been a libertarian for over 9 years. I grasp the concept of personal rights, common rights, and privileges.
 
Maybe how a libertarian should respond to the question is this way: While a government could protect rights, it cannot provide rights. So actually, we do have a right to jobs... just as we have a right to life and the fruits of our labor. It does not mean the government has to provide us with the fruits of labor, only that it protects our right to do so (by staying out of the way and/or protecting us from those who would interfere with those pursuits.)
 
No, you don't have a right to a job, however, I would not be opposed to creating job tasks for a good percentage of people on some of the social welfare programs. In the private sector, it's pretty much determined by supply/demand market forces, and that can't be guaranteed as a right without taking away incentive.

I have always believed and supported welfare recipients being used for various labor jobs in the county they reside in. Our local jailer promised 10 years ago to eliminate our jail tax if elected and it did it the first year. The prisoners go out a pick up paper along the highways prior to the mowing crews coming in and they mow and trim every city owned property we have. That is good use of budget in my opinion.
 
I have always believed and supported welfare recipients being used for various labor jobs in the county they reside in. Our local jailer promised 10 years ago to eliminate our jail tax if elected and it did it the first year. The prisoners go out a pick up paper along the highways prior to the mowing crews coming in and they mow and trim every city owned property we have. That is good use of budget in my opinion.

We have something similar here. My son works for the county, and they use local jail inmates on the road crews, under supervision of course. Some of the inmates are actually enough of an asset that they get hired by the county after their release. (and no, that isn't how my son ended up working there :lol:)
 
you have a right to worship your god, you dont have a right to go to church or other religious institution

I didn't say anything about "institutions". No reason to drag them in to the discussion.

My point relates purely to the "free exercise" clause of the 1A, which we commonly refer to as "freedom of religion", and is essentially the right to freely exercise religion.

Another way to look at the matter is to say that we are at liberty to freely exercise religion.

I recomended to X Factor back in post #47 in this thread, and I'll repeat the recomendation here, that you look into the difference between a "liberty" right as opposed to a "claim" right.

A liberty right consists of the freedom to simply do or have a certain thing, a claim right consists of an obligation on others to allow or enable or ultimately provide a certain thing.

You're taking a monocular view of this topic and looking at everything as either being a claim right or not being a right at all.

I don't think that view is accurate.

The simple fact that others aren't obligated to provide you with something doesn't mean that you don't have a right (aren't at liberty) to have it.

I agree with you that nobody is required to provide me with a job (I have no rightful "claim" to a job), but that doesn't mean that I don't have a right (am not at liberty) to have a job.

If you don't want to give me a job, and the government doesn't want to give me a job, I have the right to look elsewhere, or to obtain new skills/education which make me employable, or to open my own business, with the end being to obtain a job.

how does someone provide you with words to speak?

Well obviously they can't.

But they don't need to because we're not talking about the kind of right that obliges others to provide me with anything.

Until a law is passed that says I can't speak freely I have the right to speak freely.

Until a law is passed that says I can't have a job I have the right to a job.
 
Do you? Do you really? You are thoroughly confused.

I have explained my point thoroughly. If anyone is confused it is you.
 
I didn't say anything about "institutions". No reason to drag them in to the discussion.

My point relates purely to the "free exercise" clause of the 1A, which we commonly refer to as "freedom of religion", and is essentially the right to freely exercise religion.

Another way to look at the matter is to say that we are at liberty to freely exercise religion.

I recomended to X Factor back in post #47 in this thread, and I'll repeat the recomendation here, that you look into the difference between a "liberty" right as opposed to a "claim" right.

A liberty right consists of the freedom to simply do or have a certain thing, a claim right consists of an obligation on others to allow or enable or ultimately provide a certain thing.

You're taking a monocular view of this topic and looking at everything as either being a claim right or not being a right at all.

I don't think that view is accurate.

The simple fact that others aren't obligated to provide you with something doesn't mean that you don't have a right (aren't at liberty) to have it.

I agree with you that nobody is required to provide me with a job (I have no rightful "claim" to a job), but that doesn't mean that I don't have a right (am not at liberty) to have a job.

If you don't want to give me a job, and the government doesn't want to give me a job, I have the right to look elsewhere, or to obtain new skills/education which make me employable, or to open my own business, with the end being to obtain a job.




Well obviously they can't.

But they don't need to because we're not talking about the kind of right that obliges others to provide me with anything.

Until a law is passed that says I can't speak freely I have the right to speak freely.

Until a law is passed that says I can't have a job I have the right to a job.

Finally! Someone who gets it. :)
 
Until a law is passed that says I can't speak freely I have the right to speak freely.

Until a law is passed that says I can't have a job I have the right to a job.

There is a distinct difference between the two concepts. The right to free speech doesn't require the input or approval of anyone else. The right to a job does. The right to seek employment would correlate more with the right to speak freely.
 
While I'm all for immigration reform and ending the flood of illegals into the country, I do not believe that they are actually taking that many jobs away from Americans. Most of the places where I see illegals working would hire Americans for the same job if Americans would actually do those jobs or at least do those jobs for the available pay or reasonable pay. We do not see people flooding from welfare to unskilled manual labor jobs that pay near minimum wage, unless of course the job is in an air conditioned facility and doesn't actually require high amount of actual physical labor. Many of people who hire the illegals would also hire Americans instead, if they could actually get Americans to do the job and do it at the required level. For those who think the jobs should simply pay more, remember, the more labor cost the more the goods and services cost.

All those jobs you see illegal aliens doing were jobs that use to be done by Americans, be it on a construction site, meat packing plant, an assembly line or flipping burgers. Most of these jobs use to be well paying jobs at one time before the illegal alien invasion. It's the illegal aliens who made these jobs undesirable and are responsible for depressing the wages in these industries. Twenty years ago I read a study where it showed that most Americans don't want to be working along side with illegal aliens. I guess today they would be called racist.

Some industries have also conducted studies in particular the construction industry. What they found was that for every five illegal aliens who entered a trade, three Americans were displaced.

The current amnesty being whispered about in Congress written behind closed doors and no input by the majority of Americans calls for increasing legal immigration from the current 1 million today to over 2 million per year and over 1 million of the visas (immigration or work visas) will be issued to unskilled and uneducated immigrants. All of these are very likely will use some form of public assistance

The 11 million (probably closer to 20 million) illegal aliens who will be rewarded amnesty for breaking our laws will eventually be able to use "family reunification" to legally bring their family members in to America. The vast majority will be uneducated and unskilled and if we look at today's immigrants they will become dependent on government. (tax payers)
 
Back
Top Bottom