• 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!

Should employers have the freedom to hire/fire for any reason they wish[W:126]

should employers have the freedom to hire/fire for any reason

  • yes

    Votes: 59 48.0%

  • no

    Votes: 64 52.0%
  • Total voters
    123
Re: Should employers have the freedom to hire/fire for any reason they wish

AGENT J said:
inherent rights would also be a social construct :shrug:

hence all rights are social constructs
Click to expand...

No, inherent rights come from the individual, not from a coordination with other human beings in society.
 
Re: Should employers have the freedom to hire/fire for any reason they wish

AGENT J said:
inherent rights would also be a social construct :shrug:

hence all rights are social constructs
Click to expand...
Well, no - if some rights were actually inherent, they would exist whether a social structure did or did not exist to support them.
 
Re: Should employers have the freedom to hire/fire for any reason they wish

The Mark said:
Well, no - if some rights were actually inherent, they would exist whether a social structure did or did not exist to support them.
Click to expand...

nope because again it would be PEOPLE that decided they were inherent, theres no other way

how would they get inherent without people deciding that?

hence all social constructs
 
Re: Should employers have the freedom to hire/fire for any reason they wish

AGENT J said:
nope because again it would be PEOPLE that decided they were inherent, theres no other way

how would they get inherent without people deciding that?

hence all social constructs
Click to expand...
Do you understand the word inherent?

According to this link, it means:
involved in the constitution or essential character of something : belonging by nature or habit : intrinsic <risks inherent in the venture>
Click to expand...

This means that if something is inherent, it CANNOT be a manufactured aspect.
 
Last edited:
Re: Should employers have the freedom to hire/fire for any reason they wish

The Mark said:
Do you understand the word inherent?
Click to expand...

sure do, how does it become inherent without a person/people deciding that?
 
Re: Should employers have the freedom to hire/fire for any reason they wish

AGENT J said:
sure do, how does it become inherent without a person/people deciding that?
Click to expand...
It is impossible for a person or people to decide that something is inherent. They can only recognize that it is.
 
Re: Should employers have the freedom to hire/fire for any reason they wish

The Mark said:
It is impossible for a person or people to decide that something is inherent. They can only recognize that it is.
Click to expand...

really? how do they "recognize" it? that sounds like a decision
what makes it inherent?
 
Re: Should employers have the freedom to hire/fire for any reason they wish

AGENT J said:
really? how do they "recognize" it? that sounds like a decision
what makes it inherent?
Click to expand...
It is a decision - but whether something which is inherent exists or not is independent of recognition.

IF something is inherent, it always has and always will exist, unless the nature of that which it is part of changes.
 
Re: Should employers have the freedom to hire/fire for any reason they wish

The Mark said:
1.)It is a decision - but whether something which is inherent exists or not is independent of recognition.
2.)IF something is inherent, it always has and always will exist, unless the nature of that which it is part of changes.
Click to expand...

1.) so its a choice but the choice doesnt matter? seems fishy
2.) this doesnt answer the question in anyway whatsoever

ill ask again what makes it inherent?
 
Re: Should employers have the freedom to hire/fire for any reason they wish

AGENT J said:
1.) so its a choice but the choice doesnt matter? seems fishy
2.) this doesnt answer the question in anyway whatsoever

ill ask again what makes it inherent?
Click to expand...
The choice is whether to recognize something as inherent. Whether it is actually inherent or not is totally independent of that recognition.

The example given in the link I posted is "the dangers inherent in mountaineering".
No one decided those dangers were inherent, they just were. And are recognized as such.
 
Re: Should employers have the freedom to hire/fire for any reason they wish

The Mark said:
1.)The choice is whether to recognize something as inherent. Whether it is actually inherent or not is totally independent of that recognition.

2.)The example given in the link I posted is "the dangers inherent in mountaineering".
3.)No one decided those dangers were inherent, they just were. And are recognized as such.
Click to expand...

1.) then how does it get that way? what if nobody ever recognizes it?
2.) we arent talking about mountaineering
3.) see #2

your example isn't a parallel at all, mountaineering is an activity not like rights at all
 
Re: Should employers have the freedom to hire/fire for any reason they wish

AGENT J said:
1.) then how does it get that way? what if nobody ever recognizes it?
2.) we arent talking about mountaineering
3.) see #2

your example isn't a parallel at all, mountaineering is an activity not like rights at all
Click to expand...
Then it remains an unrecognized inherent trait.
It was an example of what the word inherent means.
 
Re: Should employers have the freedom to hire/fire for any reason they wish

The Mark said:
1.)Then it remains an unrecognized inherent trait.
2.)It was an example of what the word inherent means.
Click to expand...

1.) so then nobody would ever know, very interesting
2.) nobody asked for an example i know what it means

my question was, what makes it inherent?

and that question is in relation to the topic, its in relation to rights.
 
Re: Should employers have the freedom to hire/fire for any reason they wish

AGENT J said:
1.) so then nobody would ever know, very interesting
2.) nobody asked for an example i know what it means

my question was, what makes it inherent?

and that question is in relation to the topic, its in relation to rights.
Click to expand...
Precisely. Effectively it is impossible to know for sure that something is inherent - it may just be a factor that has not yet found a solution (in the case of "the dangers inherent in mountaineering"), or in the case of a "right", it may be inherent, yet how would you test such a thing? No way that I know of. Further, many of the rights we claim are inherent can be violated - is a right inherent if it can be violated?

The link I posted earlier gave the definition of the word, which explains what makes something inherent, at least in part. Not sure it can actually be applied to a right, however.

And the mountaineering example is fairly clear-cut - we all know that it's dangerous to climb tall mountains... Whether a right might or might not be inherent is harder to define - I would suspect that the vast majority (perhaps all) of rights are social constructs, along with any claims to inherence.
 
Re: Should employers have the freedom to hire/fire for any reason they wish

The Mark said:
1.)Precisely. Effectively it is impossible to know for sure that something is inherent - it may just be a factor that has not yet found a solution (in the case of "the dangers inherent in mountaineering"), or in the case of a "right", it may be inherent, yet how would you test such a thing? No way that I know of. Further, many of the rights we claim are inherent can be violated - is a right inherent if it can be violated?

2.)The link I posted earlier gave the definition of the word, which explains what makes something inherent, at least in part. Not sure it can actually be applied to a right, however.

3.)And the mountaineering example is fairly clear-cut - we all know that it's dangerous to climb tall mountains...

4.)Whether a right might or might not be inherent is harder to define -
5.)I would suspect that the vast majority (perhaps all) of rights are social constructs, along with any claims to inherence.
Click to expand...

1.) so it comes full circle and every right is simply made up, thank you
2.) EXACTLY because to apply to a right it would have to be made up
3.) yes i agree
4.) impossible because it will be made up
5.) yes all which was my point

the confusion was not about the word inherent it was how it possibly could be applied to rights and be factual or verified, it can not. It will simply be a construct of some kind whether social or individual etc.

Ill be disappearing for a while maybe the night but im not ignoring you

Ive been working on redoing my home network CATV, internet (wired and wireless) and Teleco. I have to go be responsible and shut down the network and run some cables. Later
 
Re: Should employers have the freedom to hire/fire for any reason they wish

AGENT J said:
1.) so it comes full circle and every right is simply made up, thank you
2.) EXACTLY because to apply to a right it would have to be made up
3.) yes i agree
4.) impossible because it will be made up
5.) yes all which was my point

the confusion was not about the word inherent it was how it possibly could be applied to rights and be factual or verified, it can not. It will simply be a construct of some kind whether social or individual etc.

Ill be disappearing for a while maybe the night but im not ignoring you

Ive been working on redoing my home network CATV, internet (wired and wireless) and Teleco. I have to go be responsible and shut down the network and run some cables. Later
Click to expand...
My only disagreement is with the statement that all rights are made up - I agree that so far as we can determine, this is the case - however, this does not eliminate the possibility that some rights ARE inherent - only that we can not determine one way or another.
 
Re: Should employers have the freedom to hire/fire for any reason they wish

Fletch said:
Look, if you want to make a statement then refuse to explain it that's your business. But Im not sure why you hang around a discussion board if that's your attitude.
Click to expand...

If you didn't get it by what I wrote, you may need to do some research yourself. I have been getting irrelevant arguments from people who ask simple questions they should know, if they plan to understand the concepts debate the issues in an informed manner and fashion in modern times.
 
Re: Should employers have the freedom to hire/fire for any reason they wish

Henrin said:
What the ****? What right to unemployment? How in the hell is any of this comparable to Jim Crow laws?
Click to expand...

Have you read a federal doctrine and State laws regarding the concept of employment at will? It should explain these simple concepts.
 
Re: Should employers have the freedom to hire/fire for any reason they wish

AlbqOwl said:
Unemployment is a separate topic here though so far as I am concerned.

For me the issue boils down to one single principle. We each have the right to use our legally and ethically acquired money, physical property, and resources as we see fit so long as we do not violate anybody else's rights or we don't. If we do, the employee has no right to any part of that other than what the employer agrees to with the employee.

If we do, the employer can hire and fire whomever he needs to in order to serve the employer's interests. The employee likewise can negotiate whatever terms he/she can get with the employer. The employer has no right to the employee's labor other than what the employee agrees to. The employee has no right to any compensation or benefit provided by the employer other than what the employer agrees to. And each will be looking to his/her own interests in the negotiations.

If we don't, then there is no such thing as unalienable rights or individual liberties. We are all puppets of the government that will assign us the rights it wants us to have at any given time, and we are subject to the government's whims, whatever those might be. And nobody owns anything.
Click to expand...

It has to do with at-will employment laws. They should be applied in a manner that conforms to our republican principles.
 
Re: Should employers have the freedom to hire/fire for any reason they wish

Henrin said:
Yes, it means that an employer may terminate its employees at will, for any or no reason. This relates back to the original topic since these are what is considered exceptions to at will employment.

In any event, why don't you explain to everyone why you have a right to unemployment compensation and exactly what right of yours is violated by being fired.
Click to expand...

It also means an employee can quit on the same at-will basis and should not be burdened with any Infringement on their civil rights regarding the concept of employment at will concerning unemployment compensation.
 
Re: Should employers have the freedom to hire/fire for any reason they wish

AGENT J said:
im sure YOU know what YOU are trying to talk about, nobody else does though lol

how many people have asked you to explain what you are posting about? 5?
Click to expand...

I usually read up on the concept.
 
Re: Should employers have the freedom to hire/fire for any reason they wish

danielpalos said:
It has to do with at-will employment laws. They should be applied in a manner that conforms to our republican principles.
Click to expand...

You'll have to forgive me if I don't put Republican principles on a very high pedestal these days. :)

But I think several are missing my point. All laws should be based on principle and the principle should precede the law.

In this case, the principle is that it is an unalienable right to use our own legally and ethically acquired money/property/resources for our own interests so long as we violate nobody else's rights. Nobody has a right to that money/property/resources without my consent. Nobody has a right to work for me or to stay working for me without my consent, nor do I have a right to anything they own or for them to work for me without their consent.

If that principle precedes any law re hiring and firing of employees, then obviously the law should recognize the employer's right to hire or fire whatever employees he wishes as he wishes so long as he is not violating an agreement made with that employee.

Due to the circumstances of my life, I have had a lot of jobs. For most I competed with others for those jobs. Sometimes I got the job. Sometimes I didn't. But it never occurred to me that the employer HAD to hire me.

And each job I got came with an agreed wage and sometimes a benefit package, and a general idea of what would be expected of me. But not a single one guaranteed me a single day's work. The employer was always at liberty to let me go any time he or she wished to do that. It was my job to make myself valuable enough to the employer that my job was secure. That is the way it is supposed to work in a society in which unalienable rights precede government..
 
Re: Should employers have the freedom to hire/fire for any reason they wish

Who could have any problem with employment at will if labor can also quit and still apply for unemployment compensation?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom