• 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
Mach said:
Where it goes is irrelevant, you can't launder the money with technicalities babilfish. Government takes money from one,
Click to expand...

At which time, that money becomes the government's. Or are we not still debating your claim that the government forces employers to employ people?

Honestly, you dropped your first stupid point but continued to pursue your second one, even though it's still a loser?
 
OpportunityCost said:
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.
Click to expand...

I remember having to go to a day long food handler's course when I worked at a restaurant (which basically boiled down to wash your hands) so for a while there, I was licensed to make sandwiches.
 
I mean, honestly, what a stupid set of arguments.

The type of stupid, ridiculous stuff Republicans come up with everyday to mask the fact that they either don't give two craps about the jobless or feel nothing but contempt for them.

And then to insinuate that through taxation government is really forcing (indirectly, somehow) employers to employ people, in the process ignoring what it means to employ someone, what taxes are, and what public works are...

What a horrible cluster**** of typical conservative stupidity.
 
babilfish said:
At which time, that money becomes the government's. Or are we not still debating your claim that the government forces employers to employ people?
Honestly, you dropped your first stupid point but continued to pursue your second one, even though it's still a loser?
Click to expand...

I can see from your responses that you're going to really add some value here. Keep it up champ!
 
babilfish said:
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.

Good god, not more bitching about taxes...

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.
Click to expand...

You can banter about these details all you want. Employment is still a contract, not a positive right. Even in the dystopian fantasy where the federal government employs all the jobless, there still must be terms associated with that employment, and the employee's decision to abide by those terms or not (and refuse the job). In no way can an employment arrangement be considered a positive right. Thus no one has a right to a job.
 
Guy Incognito said:
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.
Click to expand...

All kinds of work? Should healthcare professionals not require a license?

Part of requiring licensure is to ensure that standards are met for people wanting to work in certain professions.
 
digsbe said:
All kinds of work? Should healthcare professionals not require a license?

Part of requiring licensure is to ensure that standards are met for people wanting to work in certain professions.
Click to expand...

Licensing makes sense in certain areas, yours for example. For cutting hair though? Not so much. It has gotten ridiculous.
 
X Factor said:
Licensing makes sense in certain areas, yours for example. For cutting hair though? Not so much. It has gotten ridiculous.
Click to expand...

My brother's girlfriend goes to beauty school. There are reasons behind it, mainly reasons concerning hygiene.

Personally though, I'm fine with licenses but I think they shouldn't charge a fee. I don't think someone should be charged to keep the credentials necessary to work in their field. In some areas licensing is crazy expensive, I know for me it will probably cost over $1000 to get my first license after graduating and over $500 yearly thereafter. That's just not reasonable in my opinion.
 
JP Hochbaum said:
If one is working, they are not dependent, they are supplying themselves income by working.

Every employee would then be dependent under your definition.
Click to expand...

...If they are not making enough to feed and house their family and are on food stamps and have subsidized housing are they not still dependent?...
 
digsbe said:
All kinds of work? Should healthcare professionals not require a license?

Part of requiring licensure is to ensure that standards are met for people wanting to work in certain professions.
Click to expand...

I am starting to realize that people like to bait me into extremes only to use it as ridicule. Yes, this applies to healthcare as well, but of you think it through them you will realize that the lack of government licensure does not mean a lack of certification. An absence of government mandated licensure will mean the market will provide more robust third party certifications for healthcare professionals. It would not be the chaos you envision, the market will provide.
 
X Factor said:
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.
Click to expand...


Look at it like this...

If Joe can't get a job and doesn't have the means to start his own business... what is he going to do? What's his wife and kids gonna do?

They're not going away. They're not going to lay down in some quiet corner and politely die so the rest of society doesn't have to bother with them.


So...

Do you want Joe working a job, drawing Welfare, or stealing for a living? Pick one.
 
Goshin said:
Look at it like this...

If Joe can't get a job and doesn't have the means to start his own business... what is he going to do? What's his wife and kids gonna do?

They're not going away. They're not going to lay down in some quiet corner and politely die so the rest of society doesn't have to bother with them.


So...

Do you want Joe working a job, drawing Welfare, or stealing for a living? Pick one.
Click to expand...

Does Joe mow yards?
 
AlabamaPaul said:
Does Joe mow yards?
Click to expand...


I dunno, call him and see if he owns a lawnmower. If not, he's gonna have a hard time buying one without a job, considering that the mowers used by commercial landscapers these days cost thousands of dollars.
 
Goshin said:
I dunno, call him and see if he owns a lawnmower. If not, he's gonna have a hard time buying one without a job, considering that the mowers used by commercial landscapers these days cost thousands of dollars.
Click to expand...

I own the mower...
 
Henrin said:
You don't want to mow your lawn, do you?

Same here. :D Joe, we have a job for you!
Click to expand...

Actually, I haven't mowed the lawn for several years now... :mrgreen:
 
AlabamaPaul said:
I own the mower...
Click to expand...


We're really kinda running down a rabbit hole here... but not many people are gonna hire a lawn mowing guy who doesn't own his own mower... and given our current unemployement figures (the real figures, not the massaged ones that leave off people who have given up looking) there aren't enough lawns to go around...
 
Goshin said:
We're really kinda running down a rabbit hole here... but not many people are gonna hire a lawn mowing guy who doesn't own his own mower... and given our current unemployement figures (the real figures, not the massaged ones that leave off people who have given up looking) there aren't enough lawns to go around...
Click to expand...

No, but there are other jobs that need to be done as well. One just needs to be industrious enough to seek those out and do them well. I never implied that it would be easy, but we have created a society that is simply content with what they are given by government...
 
Guy Incognito said:
I am starting to realize that people like to bait me into extremes only to use it as ridicule. Yes, this applies to healthcare as well, but of you think it through them you will realize that the lack of government licensure does not mean a lack of certification. An absence of government mandated licensure will mean the market will provide more robust third party certifications for healthcare professionals. It would not be the chaos you envision, the market will provide.
Click to expand...

I was just trying to raise a point that I find important. You said "everybody has a right to do whatever work they wan without being required to obtain government licensure."

Third parties don't have the authority to grant someone licensure. Licenses come with professional privileges, meaning no one else is allowed to do what you do. The government may recognize a third party certification, but that certification alone should have any kind of legal privileges attached to it. The market shouldn't be trusted with granting certificates/license. Certain things should be left to the market and certain things should be left to the government. When it comes to laws and legal licenses, the government should be in control of that. The market, which doesn't have public interest as its focus, should not be in charge of essentially setting policy regarding public safety and granting licenses to people that give them certain privileges, no private institution should have that power.
 
AlabamaPaul said:
No, but there are other jobs that need to be done as well. One just needs to be industrious enough to seek those out and do them well. I never implied that it would be easy, but we have created a society that is simply content with what they are given by government...
Click to expand...


The which was not my point.

There's millions of people that WANT to work, right now today, and can't find a job.

Not everyone has the resources or ability to be an enterpreneur.

47% of America is too damn poor to pay income tax... why is that?


So do we want more Welfare, more Thieves... or more JOBS?
 
Goshin said:
The which was not my point.

There's millions of people that WANT to work, right now today, and can't find a job.

Not everyone has the resources or ability to be an enterpreneur.

47% of America is too damn poor to pay income tax... why is that?


So do we want more Welfare, more Thieves... or more JOBS?
Click to expand...

I want the government to get the eff out of the way. Why are we afraid of utilizing our own natural resources to eliminate our dependence on foreign energy as an example. Our current account account deficit is akin to a tax on everyone that purchases fuel or uses electricity produced by conventional means...
 
digsbe said:
I was just trying to raise a point that I find important. You said "everybody has a right to do whatever work they wan without being required to obtain government licensure."

Third parties don't have the authority to grant someone licensure. Licenses come with professional privileges, meaning no one else is allowed to do what you do. The government may recognize a third party certification, but that certification alone should have any kind of legal privileges attached to it. The market shouldn't be trusted with granting certificates/license. Certain things should be left to the market and certain things should be left to the government. When it comes to laws and legal licenses, the government should be in control of that. The market, which doesn't have public interest as its focus, should not be in charge of essentially setting policy regarding public safety and granting licenses to people that give them certain privileges, no private institution should have that power.
Click to expand...

I did not say third party licensure, I said certification. Third parties do very well with certification in fields such as IT, already. Think about it, what hospital would hire a doctor with no certification? What practice?

And it isnt like government licensure is some protection against quackery. Somehow your vaunted coercive licensure regime permits acupuncturists, homeopathy, and other assorted bunk. The markt would do a far better job if it were free to do so.
 
Last edited:
Goshin said:
Look at it like this...

If Joe can't get a job and doesn't have the means to start his own business... what is he going to do? What's his wife and kids gonna do?

They're not going away. They're not going to lay down in some quiet corner and politely die so the rest of society doesn't have to bother with them.


So...

Do you want Joe working a job, drawing Welfare, or stealing for a living? Pick one.
Click to expand...

Working, of course. I wonder what would happen if we didn't have social safety nets. Maybe if we didn't make not working so comfortable, people would seek a way, any way, to work.

Just thinking out loud. I do agree think we should have those safety nets. I do think welfare should supplement those who are working, not pay people not to work (unless they're truly disabled and stuff).
 
X Factor said:
Working, of course. I wonder what would happen if we didn't have social safety nets. Maybe if we didn't make not working so comfortable, people would seek a way, any way, to work.

Just thinking out loud. I do agree think we should have those safety nets. I do think welfare should supplement those who are working, not pay people not to work (unless they're truly disabled and stuff).
Click to expand...

for the able, social safety nets should be focused on the hand-UP... keep you from starving while you do job retraining and start working again as quickly as possible...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom