• 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
The poor and jobless can just fight amongst each other to find someone who doesn't cut their own grass.
Sounds productive. Sounds like they will actively, individually, seek out areas of the market that value their service. unemployed people, working hard, outrageous right? That you don't think it's reasonable is unsettling.

Also, I have to chuckle at the notion that the government "forces employment on employers" by...employing people with the money it taxes from employers.
It's the sort of thing that sounds like it would kind of make sense in your head...until you take three seconds to think about it and realize it's nonsense.

So you can't show why it's wrong, you just "disagree". That's no different than forfeiting the position, you do realize that? No really, describe what you mean and how it's NOT like what I wrote above. I will gladly accept your own words rather than the logical implication that we're left to conclude based on the little information you were brave enough to provide. I agree that it's nonsense for the voters that don't earn enough to actually pay their portion of the federals/state spending burden, it's only a minority that is largely bearing the burden of taxing so government can spend on XYZ.
 
Violence? :confused:

Behavior involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something.

I continue to hold that the ONLY justification for violence is in RESPONSE to someone acting to uninvitedly affect another's person or property. You may continue to hold that interpersonal violence is okay to use against those who have harmed no one.
 
Behavior involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something.

I continue to hold that the ONLY justification for violence is in RESPONSE to someone acting to uninvitedly affect another's person or property. You may continue to hold that interpersonal violence is okay to use against those who have harmed no one.

Where did i claim that "interpersonal violence" is ok?
 
Absolutely not. If someone else has to provide it for you then it is not a right. You have the right to work and seek a job, but you do not have a right to be employed or that someone else must employ you.
 
Sounds productive.

Actually, it doesn't. Not to any sane, rational person at least.

We don't need people fighting over the scraps to be gotten from already incredibly scare job industries. We need to find some way to get large amounts of people who want to work back to work, as we owe them that much.

It's almost evil, the things that you're saying. Lucky for you, I don't think you're really thinking this through, and that just saves your proposal from being evil.

So you can't show why it's wrong, you just "disagree".

After the government taxes you, it's their money. How they spend it is often shaped by the political electorate, but it is no longer the money of business owners. Business owners are not forced to employ anyone.

It's incredibly simple. That you think otherwise sort of shows how delusional you and the rest of the conservative movement is.
 
Where did i claim that "interpersonal violence" is ok?

I gathered as much from this exchange:

These government people are not justified in turning around and demanding that I and others pay for their choice to hire these people.
Then we will have to agree to disagree

From your response, I took you to mean that you thought that the government people ARE justified in demanding that others pay for their choice to hire these people. And of course, you know that these demands are backed up by the threat of interpersonal violence, so I have to conclude that you feel that interpersonal violence against those who have not harmed anyone or anyone's property is justified.

Did I misunderstand?
 
I gathered as much from this exchange:

From your response, I took you to mean that you thought that the government people ARE justified in demanding that others pay for their choice to hire these people. And of course, you know that these demands are backed up by the threat of interpersonal violence, so I have to conclude that you feel that interpersonal violence against those who have not harmed anyone or anyone's property is justified.

Did I misunderstand?
So you can't show why it's wrong, you just "disagree". That's no different than forfeiting the position, you do realize that? No really, describe what you mean and how it's NOT like what I wrote above. I will gladly accept your own words rather than the logical implication that we're left to conclude based on the little information you were brave enough to provide. I agree that it's nonsense for the voters that don't earn enough to actually pay their portion of the federals/state spending burden, it's only a minority that is largely bearing the burden of taxing so government can spend on XYZ.
Then the government may as well close it's doors since any taxation takes from some and gives to others. And where does that get us? :shrug:
 
Then the government may as well close it's doors since any taxation takes from some and gives to others. And where does that get us? :shrug:
It eliminates a whole crapload of interpersonal violence.
 
Actually, it doesn't. Not to any sane, rational person at least. We don't need people fighting over the scraps to be gotten from already incredibly scare job industries. We need to find some way to get large amounts of people who want to work back to work, as we owe them that much.
Scraps? I know a lot of people in landscaping, you're telling me they are all just settling for scraps. Where do you get off making such comments? You'd rather them NOT do that work, NOT get paid? Talk about evil.

After the government taxes you, it's their money. How they spend it is often shaped by the political electorate, but it is no longer the money of business owners. Business owners are not forced to employ anyone.
This does nothing to change the fact that government is forcing person X to give it money, and then turning right around and hiring person Y. You deny it here:
Also, I have to chuckle at the notion that the government "forces employment on employers" by...employing people with the money it taxes from employers.
It's the sort of thing that sounds like it would kind of make sense in your head...until you take three seconds to think about it and realize it's nonsense.

But then you refuse to admit you're denying it. You are in contradiction with your claim. I wouldn't call you evil for being incorrect, just incorrect. Don't try to make this about you being the judge of what is good and evil, that's more absurd than your contradiction above.
 
Then the government may as well close it's doors since any taxation takes from some and gives to others. And where does that get us? :shrug:

You miss the point. Babilfish is refusing to admit that's how it works. Where it would get us, is that his argument would be consistent.

The debate has never been about whether or not government should take via taxation, it's how much, and for what purpose. Trying to make it an absolute argument as you are doing is strawman.
 
It eliminates a whole crapload of interpersonal violence.
History has shown a lack of governance increases violence. Your statement is unsupported and unsupportable.
 
Last edited:
You miss the point. Babilfish is refusing to admit that's how it works. Where it would get us, is that his argument would be consistent.

The debate has never been about whether or not government should take via taxation, it's how much, and for what purpose. Trying to make it an absolute argument as you are doing is strawman.
It's not a strawman. It's forcing the realization that government out of necessity taxes people, which, by some people's definition, means it uses "interpersonal violence" to take money - in effect, theft. But if government is to exist at all it must do this. That isn't theft, it's a community understanding and consensus that we all must pay taxes for the system to function.

What taxes are collected and to what purposes they are used then becomes a matter of voting and policy, not a matter of infringing on people. We revolted against the British not because of their taxes but because we had no say in those taxes, no representation. From what I've seen on DP, many people today apparently fail to realize this and they certainly don't seem to remember that the 16th Amendment is also part of the Constitution whether they like and/or approve of it or not. The "theft" argument is the strawman, here.
 
Last edited:
History has shown a lack of governance increases violence. Your statement is unsupported and unsupportable.

I'm not arguing for a lack of governance. I'm arguing against the initiation of interpersonal violence against innocent people.
 
You certainly seem to be. Shall I quote our last exchange?

We simply disagree on whether a government that initiates interpersonal violence is the only effective means of governance.

But I suppose it gets to the question of what activities you actually mean when you refer to governance.
 
We simply disagree on whether a government that initiates interpersonal violence is the only effective means of governance.

But I suppose it gets to the question of what activities you actually mean when you refer to governance.
I think it has more to do with what YOU think "governance" means. I use the normal definition.

Hard to pay for even police and fire without taxes, let alone an army and navy - even small ones. The money to support those things has to come from somewhere. The money to maintain the White House and Congress has to come from somewhere - or will you do away with the president and our representatives, as well?
 
I think it has more to do with what YOU think "governance" means. I use the normal definition.

I would regard governance as the rules of a society that are intended to facilitate peaceful coexistence.

And the most basic rule of peaceful coexistence is that it is wrong to initiate interpersonal violence against people who have harmed no other person or person's property.

Hard to pay for even police and fire without taxes, let alone an army and navy - even small ones. The money to support those things has to come from somewhere.

Yes, if people want services they must pay for them. I don't argue with that. I only argue against the forcible taking of other's property to pay for services for which they haven't asked.

The money to maintain the White House and Congress has to come from somewhere - or will you do away with the president and our representatives, as well?

What service do they provide for which people might be willing to pay?
 
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.
Nobody has a right to a job, but everybody has a right to do whatever work they wan without being required to obtain government licensure. The socialists had it backwards.
 
Scraps? I know a lot of people in landscaping...

That's nice, I'm not sure how it answers my point that it's still a scare industry. You can't possibly shore up the large amounts of unemployed by telling them to turn towards cutting grass and cleaning houses, and it's ridiculous that you proposed such in the first place.

This does nothing to change the fact that government is forcing person X to give it money

Good god, not more bitching about taxes...

and then turning right around and hiring person Y.

Yes, with money that is it's own now, to do wish as it's mandated by the citizenry.

Again, nothing having to do with employers being forced to employ anyone.

God, what is wrong with conservatives? Honestly, if they're not dismissing the plights of the jobless they're misrepresenting the actual functions of government for whatever stupid nonsense they imagine government does.
 
Nobody has a right to a job, but everybody has a right to do whatever work they wan without being required to obtain government licensure. The socialists had it backwards.

I agree that licensing requirements have gotten ridiculous. Here, surveying land, installing an alarm, or even cutting hair without a license are criminal offenses. :roll:
 
I agree that licensing requirements have gotten ridiculous. Here, surveying land, installing an alarm, or even cutting hair without a license are criminal offenses. :roll:

That's pretty messed up. The hairdresser license is a symbol of everything wrong with our political system. Think how much better off the poor would be if the barriers to entry for the market were not so high? All you need is a pair of scissors and you could start a business cutting hair from home, but for the government which requires you to pay to attend a hairdressing academy (who probably paid them kickbacks) for the privilege of paying to obtain a license. If you're broke then all of a sudden a job that you could have had for the cost of a pair of scissors is now prohibitively expensive.
 
Last edited:
That's pretty messed up. The hairdresser license is a symbol of everything wrong with our political system. Think how much better off the poor would be if the barriers to entry for the market were not so high? All you need is a pair of scissors and you could start a business cutting hair from home, but for the government which require you to pay to attend a hairdressing academy (who probably paid them kickbacks) for he privilege of paying to obtain a license. If you're broke then all of a sudden a job that you could have had for the cost of a pair of scissors is now prohibitively expensive.

I totally agree, Guy. In some areas, mainly doing with health care, licensing makes sense. But to cut hair? If you're good at it, you get business and if you suck, you don't.
 
If you think the barriers to entry are bad in hairdressing, try opening a restaurant.

Just pricing the mandated commercial cooking equipment will crack your jaw on the floor.
 
Yes, with money that is it's own now, to do wish as it's mandated by the citizenry.Again, nothing having to do with employers being forced to employ anyone.
Where it goes is irrelevant, you can't launder the money with technicalities babilfish. Government takes money from one, and hires someone else with that money. That's reasonable no different. I understand you refuse to admit that, I can't force you to. You haven't shown how it's not effectively the same thing, you're just restating the actual behaviors involved. Yes, I agree, government taxes the money and then legally owns it, then hires people with it...that's restating the premise, that's not rebutting my claim.
God, what is wrong with conservatives? Honestly, if they're not dismissing the plights of the jobless they're misrepresenting the actual functions of government for whatever stupid nonsense they imagine government does.
Who are you debating that is a conservative? Keep the personal and insulting nonsense out of the discussion, it's not helping your argument.
 
That's pretty messed up. The hairdresser license is a symbol of everything wrong with our political system. Think how much better off the poor would be if the barriers to entry for the market were not so high? All you need is a pair of scissors and you could start a business cutting hair from home, but for the government which requires you to pay to attend a hairdressing academy (who probably paid them kickbacks) for the privilege of paying to obtain a license. If you're broke then all of a sudden a job that you could have had for the cost of a pair of scissors is now prohibitively expensive.
What's scary is how much of our job market is tied up with that stuff. Healthcare industry keeps getting absurdly more expensive per year, and they claim they have shortages...is that directly related to all the certifications and requirements, the limits on physicians, the limits on licenses of institutions that are legally allowed to instruct, etc? Same with attorney's, teachers, accountants, and on and on. It's maddening. It's like we intentionally stunt our market growth, and then wonder why people get left behind...they aren't being left behind, they are being excluded specifically by government rules.
 
Back
Top Bottom