• 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
Would you agree that spending this way is just a different sort of "tax," e.g. a prospective tax (debt) or retrospective one (tax against savers)?

I assume no, but I don't entirely understand why not.

Anyway, overall it's unbelievable that 3 out of 20 around here think people have a right to be furnished with some sort of job to do, doing who-cares-what. I think these people do not understand basic human psychology. Adult humans are not psychologically capable of being this utterly helplessly dependent on the external for all their needs. It's just not healthy.

If one is working, they are not dependent, they are supplying themselves income by working.

Every employee would then be dependent under your definition.
 
My jobsite is flooded.
 
Stop here. The government isn't stealing, it doesn't need tax revenue to spend.

I'm not talking about taxes. I'm talking about creating claims to goods where no claim previously existed.

Here's a question: A guy wants a new flat screen TV, but doesn't have the money. He goes to his shop and produces a stack of $20 bills, perfect in their execution and indistinguishable from the real thing. He then goes and uses these new bills to buy the TV.

Do you consider this to be stealing? Do you think he has harmed anyone?

And by the way, you never really answered the original question: 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?
 
I'm not talking about taxes. I'm talking about creating claims to goods where no claim previously existed.

Here's a question: A guy wants a new flat screen TV, but doesn't have the money. He goes to his shop and produces a stack of $20 bills, perfect in their execution and indistinguishable from the real thing. He then goes and uses these new bills to buy the TV.

Do you consider this to be stealing? Do you think he has harmed anyone?

And by the way, you never really answered the original question: 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?
I did answer it, you present a situation that doesn't exist. If the government supplies a job guarantee to those willing to work, they aren't taking anything from anyone. Are cops stealing? Firemen? Our Marines? That situation simply is a non starter.


And creating claims to goods is increase demand and sales for businesses! Why would you not want that!
 
I did answer it, you present a situation that doesn't exist. If the government supplies a job guarantee to those willing to work, they aren't taking anything from anyone. Are cops stealing? Firemen? Our Marines? That situation simply is a non starter.


And creating claims to goods is increase demand and sales for businesses! Why would you not want that!

So you are actually going to take the position that a guy who prints up a stack of $20 bills and uses them to provide goods and services is NOT stealing, but is instead providing a public service?!

Um, okay. Now I know into which category to place any future comments from you...
 
I did answer it, you present a situation that doesn't exist. If the government supplies a job guarantee to those willing to work, they aren't taking anything from anyone. Are cops stealing? Firemen? Our Marines? That situation simply is a non starter.


And creating claims to goods is increase demand and sales for businesses! Why would you not want that!

You presume that the federal government actually has useful jobs for these people to do don't you? What if they don't?

As to adding zeros to bank accounts - I'm terrible at economics but won't that simply devalue everyone else's bank accounts and isn't that effectively the same as increasing taxes?
 
You presume that the federal government actually has useful jobs for these people to do don't you? What if they don't?

As to adding zeros to bank accounts - I'm terrible at economics but won't that simply devalue everyone else's bank accounts and isn't that effectively the same as increasing taxes?

No, silly, buying goods with counterfeit money is actually a helpful service!
 
Glad to see most ppl vote no, America is still a bit American.

In Sweden, I can guarantee that the answer would have been yes.
 
If one is working, they are not dependent, they are supplying themselves income by working.

Every employee would then be dependent under your definition.

Well there's no contract under yours. Only a parental-like obligation to citizens from government.

The positive rights argument in general regards adult citizens as dependent children who deserve to be provided for, not as autonomous adults whose legally valid trade contracts may need to be enforced. If government is to provide us with our needs, making them positive rights, then we are depending on the external to meet our needs. It's like an adult child living at his parents' house. In some ways they're free adults, and in others they're still regarded children. I think that's typically an unhealthy way to live.
 
Last edited:
So you are actually going to take the position that a guy who prints up a stack of $20 bills and uses them to provide goods and services is NOT stealing, but is instead providing a public service?!

Um, okay. Now I know into which category to place any future comments from you...
This is the most non-sensical response I have heard in a while. I never suggested some guy printing up $20 bills and using them to provide or good or service. Stop using a strawman and address what I am saying.
 
You presume that the federal government actually has useful jobs for these people to do don't you? What if they don't?
Describe what you mean by useful, and then I could explain if it is useful or not.

As to adding zeros to bank accounts - I'm terrible at economics but won't that simply devalue everyone else's bank accounts and isn't that effectively the same as increasing taxes?
The value of the dollar is determined just as much by production as it is by currency management. And when you add money to banks accounts of those who consume, more than save, it increases production.
 
Well there's no contract under yours. Only a parental-like obligation to citizens from government.

The positive rights argument in general regards adult citizens as dependent children who deserve to be provided for, not as autonomous adults whose legally valid trade contracts may need to be enforced. If government is to provide us with our needs, making them positive rights, then we are depending on the external to meet our needs. It's like an adult child living at his parents' house. In some ways they're free adults, and in others they're still regarded children. I think that's typically an unhealthy way to live.

Sure there is a contract. You want money, you work.
 
Sure there is a contract. You want money, you work.

That's a valid contract, in your opinion? Really? And doing what? In the real world, it goes "if you do this particular type of work, I'll give you this particular amount of money."

In real contracts, there are specified terms and that are negotiated and accepted/declined. "Right to be employed" is either a thinly veiled attempt to control whoever has money (they can be ordered to employ people), or else it's a thinly veiled attempt to control whoever doesn't ("I've hired you so we now have you locked into a contract, now stand by while I figure out what the terms will be.") Real contracts work nothing like this right-to-employment proposition.
 
That's a valid contract, in your opinion? Really? And doing what? In the real world, it goes "if you do this particular type of work, I'll give you this particular amount of money."
You just said the same thing I did, please stop typing.
 
This is the most non-sensical response I have heard in a while. I never suggested some guy printing up $20 bills and using them to provide or good or service. Stop using a strawman and address what I am saying.

You're saying that the federal government can acquire goods by printing money and that this doesn't harm anyone, which is a load of manure.
 
You're saying that the federal government can acquire goods by printing money and that this doesn't harm anyone, which is a load of manure.

How does it harm anyone? It helps the private sector by adding demand.
 
How does it harm anyone? It helps the private sector by adding demand.

Think about the reason why counterfeiting is a crime, and you will come up with the answer.
 
How does it harm anyone? It helps the private sector by adding demand.

If printing money has no detrimental effect, why should anyone work at all? The government could just print money for everybody. The more the better.
 
Think about the reason why counterfeiting is a crime, and you will come up with the answer.

Counterfeiting is a crime because the government doesn't want anyone just printing currency. The governmentis allowed to print money because they can control it, and it gives them monetary sovereignty to control the value of it. So the two are not related in any way.
 
If printing money has no detrimental effect, why should anyone work at all? The government could just print money for everybody. The more the better.

That is not what I said. I am not referring to just printing money willy nilly, but creating jobs. There is a huge difference so please don't strawman.
 
Counterfeiting is a crime because the government doesn't want anyone just printing currency. The governmentis allowed to print money because they can control it, and it gives them monetary sovereignty to control the value of it. So the two are not related in any way.
And now ask yourself why the government doesn't want anyone printing currency. You're doing well. I'm sure you'll get there...
 
And now ask yourself why the government doesn't want anyone printing currency. You're doing well. I'm sure you'll get there...
I am not making teh argument to counterfeit so your point is moot and meaningless.
 
I am not making teh argument to counterfeit so your point is moot and meaningless.

Not really, counterfeiting has the same effect as what you are suggesting. You are suggesting that the fed gov should purchase goods w/ money it creates, which is exactly what a counterfeiter does. You need to think hard about why counterfeiting is considered to be stealing. Once you understand that, you should be able to apply the same reasoning to the solution you suggest.
 
Back
Top Bottom