• 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
Federalist said:
Good point. S&P would never survive in a free society.
Click to expand...
You should read more about the ratings industry before trying to make that claim stick.
 
Last edited:
MoSurveyor said:
You should read more about the ratings industry before trying to make that claim stick.
Click to expand...

If you think that S&P did a good job rating mortgage-backed securities, and would be used by investors in a free society, well you certainly are entitled to your opinion. I don't agree with you though.
 
MoSurveyor said:
I've never said increasing our population was a good thing but there's almost no way to stop it.
Click to expand...
China didn't significantly slow it with their birth policy? (Honestly don't know, but I assumed they did, one child by default I think it was).

Personally, I think suburbia and increased job mobility killed the community feeling in America. Hard to care about the effects of a local policy 5-10 years up the line when you've just moved into an area or are thinking about taking that job 1000 miles away. Centralized government is the only cohesion we have.
Click to expand...
Outrageous. We're all digitally connected now, we know more about each other and have more shared experience as a nation than every before in history. Far more privatized government functions is the most important cohesion we need. If you require big government to love me and be willing to fight to defend my freedom, then I don't really want that kind of "cohesion". I love you and I don't know you. (civic love, not man love, not that there is anything wrong with that :)

I think it tends to make us think more about other people in our society that live in different situations then we do. And, honestly, I think there's very little "planning" about it. The major ebb and flow of public opinion is what guides (not dictates) law and, in some ways, it always has.
Click to expand...
I think you spending your short time on this earth thinking about someone else's situation is a little creepy, and certainly inefficient. Why would I want you thinking about my situation and getting involved in it? Sounds backwards to me. For extreme cases sure, but day to day stuff and community? Even with an HOA with almost unlimited power in the community, you can't solve it all, and that's with a nice budget, and
 
Federalist said:
If you think that S&P did a good job rating mortgage-backed securities, and would be used by investors in a free society, well you certainly are entitled to your opinion. I don't agree with you though.
Click to expand...
Like I said, do some reading about the ratings industry before trying to make that stick. There are plenty of small companies out there that would love a share of that pie with nothing in their way but history.
 
Mach said:
China didn't significantly slow it with their birth policy? (Honestly don't know, but I assumed they did, one child by default I think it was).
Click to expand...
You really want to enact Chinese policy here? I can't believe that. I didn't add caveats to my statement because I figured they were obvious.


Mach said:
Outrageous. We're all digitally connected now, we know more about each other and have more shared experience as a nation than every before in history. Far more privatized government functions is the most important cohesion we need. If you require big government to love me and be willing to fight to defend my freedom, then I don't really want that kind of "cohesion". I love you and I don't know you. (civic love, not man love, not that there is anything wrong with that :)
Click to expand...
Replacing Big Government with Big Business won't make matters better and could easily make them worse.


Mach said:
I think you spending your short time on this earth thinking about someone else's situation is a little creepy, and certainly inefficient. Why would I want you thinking about my situation and getting involved in it? Sounds backwards to me. For extreme cases sure, but day to day stuff and community? Even with an HOA with almost unlimited power in the community, you can't solve it all, and that's with a nice budget, and
Click to expand...
Personally, I like to know what we're getting into when I vote - not just what it means for me but what it means for others as well. If you want to vote otherwise that's your privilege.
 
MoSurveyor said:
You really want to enact Chinese policy here? I can't believe that. I didn't add caveats to my statement because I figured they were obvious.
Click to expand...
My wanting or not wanting to implement it is irrelevant to countering your claim that:

Mosurveyor said:
there's almost no way to stop it.
Click to expand...
One of the largest economies/nations in the world has had policy to slow it, in reality, and you're acting as though it's something that's beyond common knowledge. If you wanted to slow population enough, you may choose to do nearly anything. If slowing population is not as big of a deal as forcing people to reduce population growth, then it's probably not a big deal. Either way, it calls your bluff.

Replacing Big Government with Big Business won't make matters better and could easily make them worse.
Click to expand...
Nonsense. you'll go buy **** on amazon or go to Target, or use Google and you'll -love it in private, and then bemoan the perils of big business on the forums? It's so silly.

Also, trivially Private != big business, don't small/med businesses make up a large portion of the ecosystem?

Personally, I like to know what we're getting into when I vote - not just what it means for me but what it means for others as well. If you want to vote otherwise that's your privilege.
Click to expand...
Reduce the amount of things you have control to vote on, distribute those privileges back to the people, and you'll have more time to spend pondering the remaining civic issues. Solves your problem and mine, how's about that.
 
shrubnose said:
You can bet that I will leave it to the U.S. government to fight our wars.
Click to expand...

You think the government should be waging war on unlicensed hairdressers, do you? :lol:
 
Mach said:
My wanting or not wanting to implement it is irrelevant to countering your claim that:

One of the largest economies/nations in the world has had policy to slow it, in reality, and you're acting as though it's something that's beyond common knowledge. If you wanted to slow population enough, you may choose to do nearly anything. If slowing population is not as big of a deal as forcing people to reduce population growth, then it's probably not a big deal. Either way, it calls your bluff.
Click to expand...
What you stated doesn't actually counter it, either, since I said "almost". If you "called" then you lost.


Mach said:
Nonsense. you'll go buy **** on amazon or go to Target, or use Google and you'll -love it in private, and then bemoan the perils of big business on the forums? It's so silly.

Also, trivially Private != big business, don't small/med businesses make up a large portion of the ecosystem?
Click to expand...
You have no clue what I do in private so your assertions are even worse than silly.

As to "bemoan[ing] the perils of big business", I very much trust business to do what it does best - make money in the most efficient way it can. If that means breaking laws, they gladly do it. If that means getting sued, they gladly do it. As long as it makes money, agrees with whatever business model they've adopted, and doesn't involve actual jail time for their officers, they will do it if they can. I have zero problems with that because that's their role in our society and it's a vital one. But anyone who thinks otherwise of business isn't being very prudent or they're not being very honest. You might find exceptions in smaller businesses but as a general rule that's why business is there, to make as much money as possible for the people who own them.


Firms of 1000+ employees make up almost ~39% of the workforce. The next step, 500-999, is another 7% and 250-499 is another 7%. That's ~53% of the work force. Where do you draw the line between "big" and "medium"?


Mach said:
Reduce the amount of things you have control to vote on, distribute those privileges back to the people, and you'll h ave more time to spend pondering the remaining civic issues. Solves your problem and mine, how's about that.
Click to expand...
The government is the people. Where do you live that you think otherwise?


I think it's naive because whether I vote at the Fed, state, county, or city level they're the same issues.
 
Last edited:
MoSurveyor said:
What you stated doesn't actually counter it, either, since I said "almost". If you "called" then you lost.
Click to expand...
As long as you agree it's entirely possible, as evidenced in realty, then there is no further rebuttal needed.

You have no clue what I do in private so your assertions are even worse than silly.
Click to expand...
I don't need to know specifics, but you're in absurd territory now Mo. Please tell us generally, no specifics or private information needed, do you really not engage the services, day in day out, in nearly all aspects of your from finance, to retirement, to health, the food, shelter, from big corporations in one form or another? Your fingers are typing things that are in contradiction to your life. I will accept it if you tell me you really do not use and defacto trust through behavior, big corporations. You'll have to be a hermit or something I assume, and no shame in that, sounds kind of neat actually.

The fact is like nearly every other person in our society you trust those services because there is VERY little risk in dealing with companies in the U.S., compared to the alternatives. We have fairly low levels of corruption, legal recourse, and companies are largely restricted to providing you what they say they will, with all sorts of guarantees, federal insurance, etc. etc., etc.
As to "bemoan[ing] the perils of big business", I very much trust business to do what it does best - make money in the most efficient way it can. If that means breaking laws, they gladly do it.
Click to expand...
Oh boy. All want to be law breakers eh? Wow. That must extend to you too then, because business is made up of humans, and you're a human. So they are better at then you, is that you're problem with it?
Firms of 1000+ employees make up almost ~39% of the workforce. The next step, 500-999, is another 7% and 250-499 is another 7%. That's ~53% of the work force. Where do you draw the line between "big" and "medium"?
Click to expand...
Draw it there for now, 50/50 is enough to be recognized.
So you don't trust the big employers?
--------------------------------------------------------------
United States Department of Defense 3.2 million United States
People's Liberation Army 2.3 million People's Republic of China
Walmart 2.1 million United States
McDonald's 1.9 million (including franchises) United States
National Health Service 1.7 million United Kingdom
China National Petroleum Corporation 1.6 million People's Republic of China
State Grid Corporation of China 1.5 million People's Republic of China
Indian Railways 1.4 million India
Indian Armed Forces 1.3 million India
Hon Hai Precision Industry (Foxconn) 1.2 million Taiwan
============================
Seems you have more cause to distrust government given they are some of the biggest employers right? Surely more to distrust than say McDonalds right? Walmart? I mean, you do realize you can like, oh I don't know, not shop at Walmart, or not eat at McDonalds right? Have you tried fighting government as opposed to "driving past Walmart"?

The government is the people. Where do you live that you think otherwise? I think it's naive because whether I vote at the Fed, state, county, or city level they're the same issues.
Click to expand...
Government is the people? That statement makes no sense, it's like you're reciting something you heard once and it sounded neat.
Government is either government, or it's not government. Did you mean government is identical to the governed? That's illogical. Did you mean citizens participate in government? That's true, but if citizens also participate in their own choices distinct from government (like you not eating at McDonalds) and if government no longer owns that choice, the citizen gets to then fully control that choice. If you cannot understand the obvious, basic, fundamental, difference in these two concepts, I understand and will attempt to discuss it with someone who does.
 
Mach said:
As long as you agree it's entirely possible, as evidenced in realty, then there is no further rebuttal needed.
Click to expand...
I never said it was completely impossible. That's wrong on it's face since we could just choose a several thousand people at random each week and shoot them. Soilent Green - YUM! :lol:


Mach said:
I don't need to know specifics, but you're in absurd territory now Mo. Please tell us generally, no specifics or private information needed, do you really not engage the services, day in day out, in nearly all aspects of your from finance, to retirement, to health, the food, shelter, from big corporations in one form or another? Your fingers are typing things that are in contradiction to your life. I will accept it if you tell me you really do not use and defacto trust through behavior, big corporations. You'll have to be a hermit or something I assume, and no shame in that, sounds kind of neat actually.

The fact is like nearly every other person in our society you trust those services because there is VERY little risk in dealing with companies in the U.S., compared to the alternatives. We have fairly low levels of corruption, legal recourse, and companies are largely restricted to providing you what they say they will, with all sorts of guarantees, federal insurance, etc. etc., etc.

Oh boy. All want to be law breakers eh? Wow. That must extend to you too then, because business is made up of humans, and you're a human. So they are better at then you, is that you're problem with it?
Draw it there for now, 50/50 is enough to be recognized.
So you don't trust the big employers?

Seems you have more cause to distrust government given they are some of the biggest employers right? Surely more to distrust than say McDonalds right? Walmart? I mean, you do realize you can like, oh I don't know, not shop at Walmart, or not eat at McDonalds right? Have you tried fighting government as opposed to "driving past Walmart"?
Click to expand...
You really don't get it, do you? Your only recourse was the shotgun effect: name as many dumb things and misinterpretations as possible to try to refute the obvious - that business is only there to make as much money as possible for it's owners.
*shakes head*


Mach said:
Government is the people? That statement makes no sense, it's like you're reciting something you heard once and it sounded neat.
Government is either government, or it's not government. Did you mean government is identical to the governed? That's illogical. Did you mean citizens participate in government? That's true, but if citizens also participate in their own choices distinct from government (like you not eating at McDonalds) and if government no longer owns that choice, the citizen gets to then fully control that choice.
Click to expand...
I think we've all seen it written but it's obvious many have forgotten and/or were never taught what it means. You obviously have no concept of team work or community and I can't explain blue to someone who's color blind.

Mach said:
If you cannot understand the obvious, basic, fundamental, difference in these two concepts, I understand and will attempt to discuss it with someone who does.
Click to expand...
Oh, I understand the differences all too well and my conclusions don't agree with yours. So, if you insist that I agree, then you may as well go preach at someone else. I will not pat you on the back and rave about how logical and rational your philosophy is while ignoring reality. Maybe someone else will.
 
Last edited:
Guy Incognito said:
You think the government should be waging war on unlicensed hairdressers, do you? :lol:
Click to expand...



You are the dude saying that, not me.

Don't try to put your lying words in my mouth.
 
shrubnose said:
You are the dude saying that, not me.

Don't try to put your lying words in my mouth.
Click to expand...

I'm not. What do you think a licensure requirement is? It's coercive. This means that it's kept in force by the point of a gun. So you're advocating precisely this, whether you realize it or not.
 
Guy Incognito said:
I'm not. What do you think a licensure requirement is? It's coercive. This means that it's kept in force by the point of a gun. So you're advocating precisely this, whether you realize it or not.
Click to expand...



Again you try to put words in my mouth. I have made no comment on that.

You don't need this forum, you could have a fine conversation with yourself.

I may have to put you on my ignore list.

Talking to someone who makes things up is a waste of time.
 
Last edited:
MoSurveyor said:
Like I said, do some reading about the ratings industry before trying to make that stick. There are plenty of small companies out there that would love a share of that pie with nothing in their way but history.
Click to expand...

I still don't agree that it is at all justified to initiate interpersonal violence against people who have not harmed anyone or anyone's property.

If people want their vendors to be certified by someone they trust, they can choose to do business with people who are certified by that agency they trust.
 
shrubnose said:
I have made no comment on that.
Click to expand...

So then you're in agreement with me that licensure requirements are unjustifiable coercion? It's one or the other. Perhaps you have simply not thought this through.
 
Guy Incognito said:
So then you're in agreement with me that licensure requirements are unjustifiable coercion? It's one or the other. Perhaps you have simply not thought this through.
Click to expand...



I'm not having a conversation with you, OK?

I don't like your attitude or style.
 
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...
How about looking for a job because if he gets a job he can't get fired from and has to be paid a certain amount of money he won't try to work at the job. If he gets a welfare check he is being paid for doing nothing and the other hard working people in either of those situations will think "hey joes not working and is getting paid around as much as we break our backs for!" Then, jobless or not slowly people will start doing what joe is doing, and when the majority of the country isn't working, the economy dies. If you don't think this can ever happen, look at Russia.
 
Jowar said:
How about looking for a job because if he gets a job he can't get fired from and has to be paid a certain amount of money he won't try to work at the job. If he gets a welfare check he is being paid for doing nothing and the other hard working people in either of those situations will think "hey joes not working and is getting paid around as much as we break our backs for!" Then, jobless or not slowly people will start doing what joe is doing, and when the majority of the country isn't working, the economy dies. If you don't think this can ever happen, look at Russia.
Click to expand...

This really is correct, because it accounts for human psychology, which is something modern macroeconomic monetary theorists neglect like crazy. They are so stratospherically separated from actual human experience that they are cannot possibly fathom the demotivating effect of being entitled to a livelihood.
 
Last edited:
Federalist said:
I still don't agree that it is at all justified to initiate interpersonal violence against people who have not harmed anyone or anyone's property.

If people want their vendors to be certified by someone they trust, they can choose to do business with people who are certified by that agency they trust.
Click to expand...
Oh, I understand the theory well enough but that's all it will ever be. While you're reading up on rating agencies you should also check out a couple of easy books on game theory and sociology/psychology. It's very interesting reading.
 
MoSurveyor said:
Oh, I understand the theory well enough but that's all it will ever be. While you're reading up in rating agencies you should also check out a couple of easy books on game theory and sociology/psychology. It's very interesting reading.
Click to expand...

So you're saying that you consider it justifiable to initiate violence against a person who has harmed no person or no person's property?
 
Federalist said:
So you're saying that you consider it justifiable to initiate violence against a person who has harmed no person or no person's property?
Click to expand...
I consider your implicit assumptions to be invalid.
 
MoSurveyor said:
We just went through all this with taxation - yesterday? Two days ago? Whenever. :shrug:

PS
#312
Click to expand...

That doesn't identify the assumptions you claim I am implicitly making or in what way they are invalid.

I asked you whether you consider it justifiable to initiate violence against a person who has harmed no person or no person's property, and you respond that you consider my implicit assumptions invalid.

So what are the implicit assumptions, and in what way are they invalid?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom