NationStates Jolt Archive

You DO, however, have a right to work. There is a difference.

You DO, however, have a right to work. There is a difference.
I am a bit confused as to your meaning here... could you clarify a bit?

oh jesus

You DO, however, have a right to work. There is a difference.

What is the ontological basis of this 'right'?

You DO, however, have a right to work. There is a difference.
I'm sorry, what? Please explain exactly what you mean and why you say this.

I believe he means that by being a burden on society, you have no right to expect any form of reparation for your existence. However, you are expected to help alleviate your slothfulness by making up for your laziness with co-operative work. It's a matter of you shouldn't expect anything in return when you pitched nothing in, yet don't be a lazy ass.

oh jesus

Oh random flucuations in the space time continum.

Would the progenator of this thread please define what a right is? Because I actually do have a right to a job. This guy said to me, "You can work here any time." So like, do I personally have a right to a job?

Think about it - Not that far back in our history there were no jobs. People provided for themselves. The early settlers of the US west provided for themselves for the most part. Nobody can deny you the right to work to provide for yourself and your family. People can, however, have an employment arrangement terminated - either with or without reason or by completion of the task. But termination of employment does not eliminate one's ability to work.

I believe he means that by being a burden on society, you have no right to expect any form of reparation for your existence. However, you are expected to help alleviate your slothfulness by making up for your laziness with co-operative work. It's a matter of you shouldn't expect anything in return when you pitched nothing in, yet don't be a lazy ass.
Sounds to me like you need to eat more fiber. Such hostility!

Sounds to me like you need to eat more fiber. Such hostility!

I'm not hostile. I'm eccentric. See, I even made that bold. Just goes to show how exciting and accepting I am.

And I was wrong, but I had a good run.

Nobody can deny you the right to work to provide for yourself and your family

In practice it seems to have happened a lot. Plenty of people have been run off land they used to support themselves and their families and allowed to starve.

In practice it seems to have happened a lot. Plenty of people have been run off land they used to support themselves and their families and allowed to starve.
Like... all of the Native Americans?

Like... all of the Native Americans?

There are still a few in South America who are still hiding, so they haven't got all of them yet.

But in the U.S. I can't think of any off hand that were allowed to stay on their original land without interference or having heapum extra americans dumped on their land.

Also there were those sort of light brown chaps who were often disapropriated in Texas when it broke away from Mexico and so on. I don't know the correct term for them. Mexican Texans?

There are still a few in South America who are still hiding, so they haven't got all of them yet.
I give em' 10 years before the rest of the rainforest is gone and they find them. Damn logging companies...

I'm not hostile. I'm eccentric. See, I even made that bold. Just goes to show how exciting and accepting I am.

And I was wrong, but I had a good run.


hehe. :)

In practice it seems to have happened a lot. Plenty of people have been run off land they used to support themselves and their families and allowed to starve.

land = labor. Not. two seperate issues.

In practice it seems to have happened a lot. Plenty of people have been run off land they used to support themselves and their families and allowed to starve.

I think what he is trying to argue is that although you may have been run of your land, you still possess the ability (regardless of how hindered it may be) to work. You still have the right to work, maybe just not the same ability to do it as you may once have had. Nobody can take away your right to work, yet they can take away your means to work.

I don't know the correct term for them. Mexican Texans?

Tejanos

It's apparently all down to a means of survival. You must work to survive if you are deprived. If you have no incentive to work for a benefit, work for the most basic of benefits - to stay alive. Henceforth, you may work but not expect any form of payment greater than your life, and even then, you may turn that around to lengthen the life span of another around you.

I think what he is trying to argue is that although you may have been run of your land, you still possess the ability (regardless of how hindered it may be) to work. You still have the right to work, maybe just not the same ability to do it as you may once have had. Nobody can take away your right to work, yet they can take away your means to work.
Land isn't just a means to work, it is property. Hence the right to property - just as the results of your labor is property.

My dad pointed the dichotomy out to me once. He said, "There's a difference between a job and work. Work is work. A job is a guy leaning on his broom and goofing off all day."

The Declaration of Independence states that everyone has the right to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. How these are attained isn't spelled out but the way this country has developed, in order to have anything, you have to have money. The government did away with private mints for legal public tender a long time ago, so in order to get money, you have to earn it. How does one earn money? Usually by finding employment, whether through a third party or by personal initiative.

However, in order to stay employed and keep one's job, one must WORK, and not, as my dad said, lean on your broom and goof off all day. Anyone who applies themselves can get a job, it's keeping it that is the question.

So basically the ability to find and eat insects and sqeeeze desert frogs for water counts as work, and we all have a "right" to do that? Oh good. I'm so glad I have that right. Personally I wouldn't have called this a right, I would have simply have called it not being dead. But that's just me.

It's definitely a trolling kind of statement...

But I get the gist of it. The OP doesn't believe in a 'right' to an individual being gauranteed a job, but believes in the 'right to work' (well, duh.)

The whole argument is specious.

He should have said....

PRESS 11111 IF your a capitalist
and
PRESS 22222 If your a socialist
and
PRESS 33333 IF your a facist/ commie who thinks hobos should be shot or work.

He should have said....

PRESS 11111 IF your a capitalist
and
PRESS 22222 If your a socialist
and
PRESS 33333 IF your a facist/ commie who thinks hobos should be shot or work.

11111

(okay, I'm Canadian, so there are tinges of 22222)

11111

(okay, I'm Canadian, so there are tinges of 22222)


Question does the canadian anthem start with O' Canada? because for some reason I have this image of Charlie brown singing O' Christmas tree as the Canadian National Anthem.


by the way a fellow 11111

Am I 11111? I think everyone should have capital. Does that make me 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5?

You DO, however, have a right to work. There is a difference.

The right to labor can be lost. It is not inalienable.

Maybe if we consider rights to be contingent on our defense of them, then we can call the right to labor natural, in that we can only will it away.

Question does the canadian anthem start with O' Canada? because for some reason I have this image of Charlie brown singing O' Christmas tree as the Canadian National Anthem.


by the way a fellow 11111

Well, occasionally we like to break into a 'lu-lu-lu, lu-lu lu-lu-lu...' , but generally it's Oh Canada, with an occasional french stanza.

And welcome fellow 11111'er.

By work, one simply means productive effort. You have a undisputable right to undertake productive effort on your property. You can grow vegetables in your garden, etc. You also have a right to work on unowned land and resources (homesteading), the fruits of that land, and the land itself becomes yours.

A job, or employment for a less ambiguous term, is the sale of your labour to the same seller over time.

It is like anyother sale, if the buyer chooses not to buy, that is his right. It is the same as you buying vegetables. If you don't want to buy vegetables, you cannot be forced to.

I used to buy a considerable amount of junk food. I chose to cease doing so. My reasons for doing so have absolutely nothing to do with anyone save myself, I can chose to cease consuming for health reasons, for reasons of taste, dissatisfaction with service, learning to cook more efficiently, a dislike of pimply teenagers of the type who work in these places, or joining a cult that forbids junk food.

That is entirely my decision, and the sellers of the junk food have absolutely no right whatsoever to do anything to change my mind, except through persuasion, advertising in this case.

A worker in danger of being sacked only has the right to persuade his employer to keep buying his services. If he does anything else, he steals from his employer. There is no moral difference between a worker "borrowing" from petty cash, and a worker suing an employer for "unfair dismissal".

If you believe that an employee should be able to sue his employer for ceasing to buy his services, then you cannot in fact object to a fast food chain suing me for eating in a more healthy manner.

... the gist of it. The OP doesn't believe in a 'right' to an individual being gauranteed a job, but believes in the 'right to work' (well, duh.)

The whole argument is specious.Hey, cool. Because everywhere I've lived "right to work" is doublespeak for "we hate unions". Put the no right to a job and the right to work together and it's a corporate paradise.

you dont have to work for a corporaion... but evearyone has the right to choose to do so. YOu dont like the rules dont force someone to play by yours... find another job which pays more or has better benefits.

oh jesus

You called?

:p

Edit: Actually remaining on topic, it's fairly obvious that there is no right to a job, seeing as how there are rarely as many jobs as people, but I'm not sure what the part about work actually means.

Conservatives tend to use the language of 'entitlement' to scoff social programs.

But there's a difference between somebody having a 'right' to something, and it being a good idea to enforce it.

That is....just because something is not on a checklist of 'natural rights' doesn't mean that we, as a society, shouldn't provide it as part of the social contract. Anybody who is willing to work should be able to receive at the very least, sustenance compensation for their work.

I'm still confused. Is the OP argueing that one has a right to work, but does not automatically have the right to expect to be compensated for it, or that one has the right to be alive and capable of performing some task (whatever that task may be) but does not necessarily have the right to have the opportunity to utilize that ability?


Either way, it's a load of BS.

PRESS 33333 IF your a facist/ commie who thinks hobos should be shot or work.

What is a 'facist'?

Go Anarchy! ;)

What is a 'facist'?

Someone who descriminates against people because of their faces, obviously.

Calling the human ability to work a "right" seems a bit like calling breathing or urination a right. While being able to breath and urinate is very important, if we start getting picky like this I do think the list could get rather lengthy, as it would have to include things such as the "right" to anabolize fructose.

Calling the human ability to work a "right" seems a bit like calling breathing or urination a right. While being able to breath and urinate is very important, if we start getting picky like this I do think the list could get rather lengthy, as it would have to include things such as the "right" to anabolize fructose.

What I think he actually is talking about is private property rights. You have the right to work on your own property, to increase its value.

What I think he actually is talking about is private property rights. You have the right to work on your own property, to increase its value.

And where, pray tell, did this right come from?

- aside from the fact that values of all material goods are clearly subjective, and so a right to work to increase them is an incredibly thorny one. Do we also have a right to reappraise how we value things, and so place a greater value than previously on the property, even though no work has been done on it?

And where, pray tell, did this right come from?

It is the only way to reconcile the idea of "right to work" with reality. I thought I made it quite plain.

aside from the fact that values of all material goods are clearly subjective, and so a right to work to increase them is an incredibly thorny one. Do we also have a right to reappraise how we value things, and so place a greater value than previously on the property, even though no work has been done on it?

Yes, however, there are quite general trends in terms of what people find valuable. People tend to find finished metal goods to be of more value to them than ore.

That you have a right to try to increase the value of your own property is hardly thorny.

YOu do not have a right to a job.
You DO, however, have a right to work. There is a difference.
I keep trying to explain this to my boyfriend.

He seems to believe that since he has acquired a degree, a nice job should be handed to him with a side of poutine.

You also have a right to work on unowned land and resources (homesteading), the fruits of that land, and the land itself becomes yours.
Is there any unowned land any more though?

BTW, what happens if you are disabled and cannot work due to physical limitations?

Is there any unowned land any more though?

Yes and no.

No in the sense that what isn't privately owned has been claimed by governments (Crown Land, is an example), and the UN is in the process of claiming the ocean floor.

(In point of fact, land which is "privately owned" is merely rented from the government, which is why they call it "real estate", the exception is "allodial title")

Yes in the sense that these claims by governments and the UN are not legitimate as they've done nothing prouctive to the land in terms of homesteading (especially the UN).

A national government should be able to claim unowned land, but only for specific, legitimate purposes, like a Defence Department claiming unowned land for an airbase, and only if no private citizen is interested in homesteading the land. As for the UN, they should not even be able to own the property they have, let alone place claims on unowned resources.

BTW, what happens if you are disabled and cannot work due to physical limitations?

Your question is based on a fundamental understanding of what "right" means.

Having a right to something means simply that no one can take it from you legitimately, e.g., I have a right to property, if you take my property, you have committed a crime and should be punished.

Having a right to do something means that you do not need to ask permission to do it, e.g. I have the right to express my opinions, I don't need the government's permission to do so.

The right of the disabled man to work doesn't confer upon me a duty to compensate him for his physical incapacity.

Having a right to something means simply that no one can take it from you legitimately, e.g., I have a right to property, if you take my property, you have committed a crime and should be punished.

Having a right to do something means that you do not need to ask permission to do it, e.g. I have the right to express my opinions, I don't need the government's permission to do so.

Okay, we finally have a definition to work with. Since I can work for myself and don't need to ask anyone's permission to do so, it looks as though I do have a right to a job. It's one I made myself, but a job none the less.

I keep trying to explain this to my boyfriend.

He seems to believe that since he has acquired a degree, a nice job should be handed to him with a side of poutine.


It looks like you are one of the few with Disralie 3 (can't spell) who understood what the OP was talking about.

Yes and no.

No in the sense that what isn't privately owned has been claimed by governments (Crown Land, is an example), and the UN is in the process of claiming the ocean floor.

(In point of fact, land which is "privately owned" is merely rented from the government, which is why they call it "real estate", the exception is "allodial title")

Yes in the sense that these claims by governments and the UN are not legitimate as they've done nothing prouctive to the land in terms of homesteading (especially the UN).

A national government should be able to claim unowned land, but only for specific, legitimate purposes, like a Defence Department claiming unowned land for an airbase, and only if no private citizen is interested in homesteading the land. As for the UN, they should not even be able to own the property they have, let alone place claims on unowned resources.
So what would your opinion of public lands be then? Lands held by governments for the good of the public, to provide open spaces, ranching and grazing lands, mining, and the like?

And I'm more than happy to let the UN claim the ocean floor. It would be rather hard to homestead that anyway. Your cabin would keep floating away after all. :p

Is there any unowned land any more though?

BTW, what happens if you are disabled and cannot work due to physical limitations?

You are assuming work only comes in the form of physical labour, work does not have to be physical but can be the use of the mind (consultants, advisers etc). The same is the other way around limited mentally does not stop physical work (may hinder some tasks)

A problem arises if you are disabled in such a way that you are limited in both physical and mentally. This is where the role of the government/family/society come in to support those who cannot support themselves (obviously this includes children).

So what would your opinion of public lands be then? Lands held by governments for the good of the public, to provide open spaces, ranching and grazing lands, mining, and the like?

Governments don't need to hold any sort of ownership over those lands. All governments need to to keep such lands open for productive activities is enforce soverignty over them, to make a claim for the territory and enforce that claim through the military and policing resources available to the government.

And I'm more than happy to let the UN claim the ocean floor. It would be rather hard to homestead that anyway. Your cabin would keep floating away after all.

lol, but seriously, the ocean floor we know holds great mineral wealth, it may also be good for new forms of farming, maybe even living in the very distant future.

Since I can work for myself and don't need to ask anyone's permission to do so, it looks as though I do have a right to a job. It's one I made myself, but a job none the less.

I think you're coming back to a point of definitions. By "job", I, and I think the original poster, meant "an arrangement in which someone consistantly sells his labour to the same buyer, an employer".

By "work", I mean "productive activity", which is irrespective of where, how, and for whom.

It is a lingual trick, and quite common in English, like "self-employed", in place of the more appropriate businessman.

Incidently, if you made your own "job", you're a businessman, you don't have a job, you have a business.

I believe that workers in the West have no right to strike against their employers to demand that they have jobs - when by having that job they are denying at least a dozen in the developing world from the same job, with the only difference being that those people in poor countries will starve if they do not work, and that in the West one can live in comparitive luxury on the dole.

I think we need to start making cultural changes in the West, changes to ready us for a 'post-work society' as it becomes economically and morally indefencible for us not to outsource our jobs to the world's emmerging workhouses. We need to break the cultural tie that binds Working and Earning and realise that in a global free market of labour only a small percentage of upper business managers, and those in the retail sector who sell to them, can reasonably expect a job, and that the rest of us must then be supported by our governments.

However, as we have learned since the Thatcherite economic policies, and the effect they have left on us today, that this work-culture is so deeply ingrained that people who are left pathologically unemployed are left feeling without a place in society - forming an unemployable underclass of people who are viewed by the majority as criminals and leeches. It is _essential_ that these people be found a new purpose in their lives or we seriously face the threat of social collapse.

To this end I propose the creation of a leisure society, whereby the government raises its funds from taxing the corporations and their governing elites to the amount equal to that which they have saved by not employing their workers from the 'First World'. This money will be spent on public services and the remainder given out as a weekly 'citizen's wage' to the population, with this wage they are able to consume the products that the world produces for them. And the remainder of their time that is not spent as consumers is spent on cerebral activities, instead of concentrating on employment skills the education system will concentrate on areas such as the arts, creating a population that is intent to spend its days in front on an easel or type writer, or designing computer software or advancing science in corporate-backed laboratories.

This conditioning of the population away from work will be suplimented by having the manual labour jobs that must be done at home performed by foreign guest workers, (such as construction, medicine(?) etc.), on the understanding that a good job may enable them to buy their citizenship. The military will consist entirely of foreign mercenaries (except for the admiralty and generalty) who need never even step foot on the land that they are defending during their tour of duty, military jobs will be very high-paying in conparison with the rest of the developing economies' wages, creating a third-world military fighting with second-world equipment for the protection of a first-world nation, and the whole system running on the basis of economic sensibility instead of contrived concepts such as patriotism.

Doubtless some of the readers are viewing this as ridiculous utopianism, but think about, the natural progression of economic developement would eventually lead to such a conclusion, (not that it is a conclusion, as when the global free market eventually equalises the world, the West will once again have to learn how to work). And, furthermore, this is our reward. As the first nations to endure the industrial revolution, our populations suffered the most. Safety precautions present in even the worst modern-day sweat-shop were absent in the workhouses of Victorian Britain, this is the reward our great-great-grandparents were working towards, centuries of manual labour was for this goal, and we should not deny them their lifes' work for the purpose of continuing to live in this nostalgic manual labour economy.

I think you're coming back to a point of definitions. By "job", I, and I think the original poster, meant "an arrangement in which someone consistantly sells his labour to the same buyer, an employer".

By "work", I mean "productive activity", which is irrespective of where, how, and for whom.

It is a lingual trick, and quite common in English, like "self-employed", in place of the more appropriate businessman.

Incidently, if you made your own "job", you're a businessman, you don't have a job, you have a business.

Hmmm... Okay, but I pay myself wages, so I guess I'm selling my labour to myself. In fact, I'm thinking of giving myself a big pay increase. I guess I own a business owner with one worker who happens to be myself.

So the arguement is that no one has the right to sell their labour to a buyer, but they can sell their labour to a buyer if they want to? And the converse of that is that someone doesn't have to buy someone's labour but they can if they want to?

Or more simply, you can offer you labour to someone, but they don't have to buy it.

Okay, that does seem to describe what actually happens in the world today. I wonder if there are any people who actually think that people are required to buy their labour? I know of people who think they deserve a job, but I don't know anyone who thinks that people are required to buy their labour. In fact, in this country I'd say this set of people is practically non-existant.

In the UN Human Rights Declaration, you do have. In the French Constitution, you do have one too.

Saddly, in reality, you don't. Because capitalism cannot allow it...

I'm still confused. Is the OP argueing that one has a right to work, but does not automatically have the right to expect to be compensated for it, or that one has the right to be alive and capable of performing some task (whatever that task may be) but does not necessarily have the right to have the opportunity to utilize that ability?


Either way, it's a load of BS.


You are wrong on both counts. You have a right to work for whatever compendation you deem fair. You do not have a right to force anyone to employ you against their will. Your second guess is too far out in left field for me to even guess how you got there.

What I think he actually is talking about is private property rights. You have the right to work on your own property, to increase its value.


Nope - though your statement is true. That right is not limited. You can work wherever you are welcomed or able (like fishing)

And where, pray tell, did this right come from?

- aside from the fact that values of all material goods are clearly subjective, and so a right to work to increase them is an incredibly thorny one. Do we also have a right to reappraise how we value things, and so place a greater value than previously on the property, even though no work has been done on it?


You have a right to spend the fruits of your labors however you see fit, so 'yes' would be the answer.

I keep trying to explain this to my boyfriend.

He seems to believe that since he has acquired a degree, a nice job should be handed to him with a side of poutine.


ROFLMAO! Tell him to make his own job - THAT is his right.

Is there any unowned land any more though?

BTW, what happens if you are disabled and cannot work due to physical limitations?


if you are disabled you are still capable of work unless you are completely vegitative - in which case you become unable to excersize many rights - but it does not mean you don't have them.

Okay, we finally have a definition to work with. Since I can work for myself and don't need to ask anyone's permission to do so, it looks as though I do have a right to a job. It's one I made myself, but a job none the less.


Semantics is always the victory of losers.

So basically the ability to find and eat insects and sqeeeze desert frogs for water counts as work, and we all have a "right" to do that? Oh good. I'm so glad I have that right. Personally I wouldn't have called this a right, I would have simply have called it not being dead. But that's just me.


IF you consider the self-employed the equivelent of bug-eaters and frog-squishers then you truly have a sad existence. I hope you mention this the next time you hire one to fix your plumbing, small appliance, electrical work, landscaping, car, haircut, physician,... I can go on.

IF you consider the self-employed the equivelent of bug-eaters and frog-squishers then you truly have a sad existence. I hope you mention this the next time you hire one to fix your plumbing, small appliance, electrical work, landscaping, car, haircut, physician,... I can go on.

I am self employed. But yeah, somedays it is like squishing bugs.

Anyway. Back to semantics, does anyone here know anyone who thinks that people are required to buy their labour? Because after reading through the definitions that people have given for rights and jobs, I can't think of anyone I know who thinks that they have a right to a job, that is people are required to buy their labour.

well, im fighting for my right NOT to work.

So the arguement is that no one has the right to sell their labour to a buyer, but they can sell their labour to a buyer if they want to? And the converse of that is that someone doesn't have to buy someone's labour but they can if they want to?

You have the right to offer to sell your labour to someone, just as a car company has the right to offer to sell you a car.

A potential buyer has the right to refuse to buy your labour, or a car, he also has the right to accept the sale, or try to negotiate a better sale for himself.

You too have the right to negotiate a better sale for you.

I hope that makes things more clear.

Greyenivol Colony, your entire post is a pile of mule fritters. You need to read some economics, the society you propose would collapse into destitution quickly. The corporations, and rich you propose to tax will simply leave.

In fact, anyone productive will leave because he can find more than your "citizens' wage" elsewhere. Because your society will not produce wealth at all, that "wage" will rapidly dwindle in its real value. Others around the world will not sell you goods as you will become unable to pay for them, you certainly will not be able to pay as well the countries actually producing wealth. You may well be able to forestall this day be selling off what remains of the natural resources, but you can't prevent it.

Your "ideal" society would find itself in the same situation that Zimbabwe, or North Korea is in, while the "third-world" would find itself prospering.

well, im fighting for my right NOT to work.

Asserting a "right not to work" usually resolves itself to "right to live off the wealth produced by others", which places you at the same level as a mugger.

Asserting a "right not to work" usually resolves itself to "right to live off the wealth produced by others", which places you at the same level as a mugger.

Bit of a jump there. By fighting for the right not to work she could be referring to racking up the old investments so she can retire.

Not that you can't mug people and then invest the proceeds...

Bit of a jump there. By fighting for the right not to work she could be referring to racking up the old investments so she can retire.

Not that you can't mug people and then invest the proceeds...

Its not that much of a jump. Anyway, in my experience, these "right not to work" people tend to be leftoids.

Its not that much of a jump. Anyway, in my experience, these "right not to work" people tend to be leftoids.

Well I have had lots of experience with people who don't want to work, or who want to stop working. Not sure if these are the same as the "right not to work" people you refer to. But since you don't have to ask anyone for permission not to work and no one is allowed to take away your not working, then, according to definition previously given in this thread for a right we all have a right not to work anyway.

Well I have had lots of experience with people who don't want to work, or who want to stop working. Not sure if these are the same as the "right not to work" people you refer to. But since you don't have to ask anyone for permission not to work and no one is allowed to take away your not working, then, according to definition previously given in this thread for a right we all have a right not to work anyway.

excellent

Asserting a "right not to work" usually resolves itself to "right to live off the wealth produced by others", which places you at the same level as a mugger.

I am much more friendly then a mugger. If anything the goverment would be the mugger and i would just be the lucky receipient of the his stolen riches.

I am much more friendly then a mugger. If anything the goverment would be the mugger and i would just be the lucky receipient of the his stolen riches.

There is no difference between robbing someone directly, and asking someone to do it for you. You are just as much a thief.

It is the only way to reconcile the idea of "right to work" with reality. I thought I made it quite plain.

Maybe I'm being excessively slow, but I see the ability to labour, and nowhere do I perceive a right.

Maybe I'm being excessively slow, but I see the ability to labour, and nowhere do I perceive a right.

Yes, I'm also slow with all this rights stuff. Apparently if you don't have to ask someone for permission to do something it's a right. I tried to point out that it seemed a little odd to me to refer to someone's ability to eat bugs and suck water out of frogs after being driven into the wastelands as a right to work, but aparently it is. And I it seems that I also have a right to anabolize protien, so that's nice. In fact the list of rights I have is so enormous it appears to run the risk of being a not very helpful concept, but oh well.

I am self employed. But yeah, somedays it is like squishing bugs.

Eww, BUGEATER!!! Nee-ner! (JK)

Anyway. Back to semantics, does anyone here know anyone who thinks that people are required to buy their labour? Because after reading through the definitions that people have given for rights and jobs, I can't think of anyone I know who thinks that they have a right to a job, that is people are required to buy their labour.

Eww, BUGEATER!!! Nee-ner! (JK)

Yes, they're called "The French".

To this end I propose the creation of a leisure society, whereby the government raises its funds from taxing the corporations and their governing elites to the amount equal to that which they have saved by not employing their workers from the 'First World'. This money will be spent on public services and the remainder given out as a weekly 'citizen's wage' to the population, with this wage they are able to consume the products that the world produces for them. And the remainder of their time that is not spent as consumers is spent on cerebral activities, instead of concentrating on employment skills the education system will concentrate on areas such as the arts, creating a population that is intent to spend its days in front on an easel or type writer, or designing computer software or advancing science in corporate-backed laboratories.



We already tried that in the US - we called it 'Welfare'. It was a miserable failure which had to be reformed years ago.

And yes, I do find your entire premise laughable. Developed nations governments enslaving developing ones - greeaat plan! :rolleyes:

Asserting a "right not to work" usually resolves itself to "right to live off the wealth produced by others", which places you at the same level as a mugger.

or a tax collector.. :)

Bit of a jump there. By fighting for the right not to work she could be referring to racking up the old investments so she can retire.

Not that you can't mug people and then invest the proceeds...


Ahh, but where do the investments come from? Fruits of labor don't have to be immediatly consumed.

You DO, however, have a right to work. There is a difference.
What is the point of this thread?

Keep fighting socialism, B0zzy. :rolleyes:

What is the point of this thread?

Keep fighting socialism, B0zzy. :rolleyes:

Or, possibly, fighting capitalism, depending on the way you read it.

Land isn't just a means to work, it is property. Hence the right to property - just as the results of your labor is property.
This thread is just a right-wing intellectual wanking session, isn't it?

Yes, I'm also slow with all this rights stuff. Apparently if you don't have to ask someone for permission to do something it's a right. I tried to point out that it seemed a little odd to me to refer to someone's ability to eat bugs and suck water out of frogs after being driven into the wastelands as a right to work, but aparently it is. And I it seems that I also have a right to anabolize protien, so that's nice. In fact the list of rights I have is so enormous it appears to run the risk of being a not very helpful concept, but oh well.


You are still hung up differentiating your issues - your hang-up is your conditional statement "being driven into the wastelands" which refers not to work, jopbs or labor - it refers to property and territory. Two very different things. I can steal you hammer but not your right to pound stuff.

Two very different things. I can steal you hammer but not your right to pound stuff.

'kin hell.

http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10909235&postcount=4

Still waiting for an answer to post #4

What is the ontological basis of this 'right'?

What is the point of this thread?

Keep fighting socialism, B0zzy. :rolleyes:


Socialism is it's own argument against itself - there is no need.

The right to work is a primary issue of life. It means you do not have to sit around waiting for someone else to offer you a job. It means that you do not need to depend on anyone else - government or corporation to provide for you. It means you can provide for yourself.

The French seem to think that they have a right to a job provided by someone else - hence all of their labor laws. People take to the streets and complain about not having jobs but there is nothing preventing the vast majority of them from creating their own! Imagine how dynamic France would be if all of the young people - instead of crying about tenure - stepped up and created their own jobs. Corporations and government are useful tools - but you don't have to be dependant on them or anyone else. You can do it yourself! It is what drives economies and creates wealth. If you don't have the skills then go out and get them - you have the ability to learn (and the French are among the highest educated in the world!) Success is not predicated by anyone else but you. In order to succeed you have to do something.

The point of theis thread is the most important one you could hope for; It is that YOU do not need to depend on anyone.

'kin hell.

http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10909235&postcount=4

Still waiting for an answer to post #4

What is the ontological basis of this 'right'?

If you want to debate the term 'right' this is not the thread for it. No hijacking allowed. There are plenty of old threads and new ones are welcome discussing that topic.

This thread is just a right-wing intellectual wanking session, isn't it?
Now there's an enlightened statement if I ever saw one. Thanks for contributing and showing us your level of sophistication. :rolleyes:

If you want to debate the term 'right' this is not the thread for it. No hijacking allowed. There are plenty of old threads and new ones are welcome discussing that topic.

No, you have asserted the existence of the thing, but shy away from explaining where it comes from. Is it granted by outside agency or is it implict in our existence?

Imagine how dynamic France would be if all of the young people - instead of crying about tenure - stepped up and created their own jobs. Corporations and government are useful tools - but you don't have to be dependant on them or anyone else. You can do it yourself!

Exactly!!!!!!!oneone!!!1


All you need do is spend a pittance on some clay, some paint and some varnish and in no time you'll have your very own job.

http://cache.gizmodo.com/gadgets/images/black_chalk_mug.jpg

Oh, wait, no...that's a mug.

Question: do I have a right to give somebody else a job?

Yes, they're called "The French".

Yep the crappy attitude the French have about having a right to a job is why productivity will never be as high in France as it is in the United States.

Oh, wait a minute. Productivity is actually higher in France than the United States. Damn! Another beautiful theory slain!

(But their bugs do taste good.)

Question: do I have a right to give somebody else a job?

We've had one definition of a right given and basically if you don't have to ask someone to do it, it's a right. So as long as you don't have to ask permission you have the right to give someone a job. You also have a right to drink coffee. Enjoy. Right now I'm enjoying my right to pick my nose. (Makes it hard to tyyppe, however.) Now some might think this trivializes the whole concept of rights, but I can only work with what I'm given.

or a tax collector...

Lets not insult the lad too much.

Question: do I have a right to give somebody else a job?

You have the right to buy labour from anyone willing to sell it on mutually agreed terms.

Now some might think this trivializes the whole concept of rights, but I can only work with what I'm given.

It would appear that we also have the right to subjugate and enslave our neighbours by force.

Like... all of the Native Americans?

Obviously, you've never been to Foxwoods.
http://www.foxwoods.com/

if you have the right to work you surely therefore have the right not to work. however without working (unless u inherit money restricting this to the priveldged), you cannot live as a\you cannot buy food etc, or even live in property as property is taxed regardless of work. therefore, work is enforced by our culture, there is no right to work, you HAVE to work therefore meaning it can be right (unless rich already). therefore if ure forced to work for a living then it is not a right, and the right therefore should be for a job. denying the right to a job, therefore removes the ability to live, therefore kills u!!!!

People take to the streets and complain about not having jobs but there is nothing preventing the vast majority of them from creating their own!
Lack of capital?

Now there's an enlightened statement if I ever saw one. Thanks for contributing and showing us your level of sophistication. :rolleyes:
It's just the same old points that we've all seen and refuted a million times before being rolled out again. It deserves nothing more.

Ahh, but where do the investments come from? Fruits of labor don't have to be immediatly consumed.

inherited wealth or a gift from someone to you, both of these avoid the particular person doing any work for the wealth.

It's just the same old points that we've all seen and refuted a million times before being rolled out again. It deserves nothing more.

A dismissal does not constitute a refutation, nor does emotional drivel.

Lack of capital?

You say that like nothing causes it. As though capital fell from the skies, or was apportioned by the Great Apocalyptic Voodoo Monkey Of The Sky. There are reasons people don't want to invest in France. Why don't you research them?

It would appear that we also have the right to subjugate and enslave our neighbours by force.

No I think you have to ask congress for permission to do that. Or at least get the nod from the local authorities. But you have the right to pet your cat. Don't you feel your fundamental dignity as a human being expanding now that you have all these rights you probably never knew you had? I know I do. Mmmm... right to eat waffles. Ahhhhh... right to urinate....

But you have the right to a living wage, be that from your government or your employer.

Of course you don't have a right to work; jobs are not created for workers, they are created because companies need people to perform tasks and increase their ability to produce their products and generate additional revenue and profits.

Companies don't hire for the sake of hiring; they only hire when their needs require it and there are no cheaper ways to create the same benefits as additional staff. They hire because of demand and supply factors, and if those factors are not present they do not hire or even reduce staff.

Remember the circular flow model; companies pay workers and purchase production factors with revenue that comes from sales of their products and services. If the revenue is not there and is not growing fast enough to require additional staff, companies will not hire because it would crimp profits used to increase future revenue.

In reality, you would not have a right to a job unless all companies were required to hire a certain number of people, and that in turn would require a mandantory amount of spending in the economy necessary to sustain that level of hiring. Of course, this is both economically disasterous and reduces the rights of individuals far more than at-will employment ever could.

I certainly do have a right to a job, if I want one.

But you have the right to a living wage, be that from your government or your employer.

No, you don't. You have a right to a wage equal to whatever brings equilibrium to labor supply and demand; in most cases, this is more than enough to support a family and maintain discretionary spending, but in others it isn't.

However, I support a living wage but not for the same reasons as others. It is a good idea only because it provides a price floor for labor that guarantees a constant surplus of unskilled labor, and that gives employers a lot more flexibility in hiring and firing these workers. It also reduces marginal costs like benefits or healthcare costs by giving employers a lot of flexibility to fire workers and reduces inflation by keeping unskilled unemployment constantly in the upper range of the Philips curve.

No, you don't.

Personally speaking, I do.

Personally speaking, I do.

Well, if you're a skilled worker you are virtually guaranteed one because demand is high and supply is tight. I support a living wage, not because of some notion of a "right" but because it is an economically good idea for employers.

I certainly do have a right to a job, if I want one.

Not if there isnt one available for someone with your qualifications.

Well, if you're a skilled worker you are virtually guaranteed one because demand is high and supply is tight. I support a living wage, not because of some notion of a "right" but because it is an economically good idea for employers.

No, I have one because I am a British subject residing in the UK.

Personally speaking, I do.

Well that's hardly a meaningful statement. When discussing rights, it's not, "What have people personally offered you?" it's, "To what are you entitled?" More specifically, in the case of affirmative rights, it's, "What is the government required to provide you?" and in the case of negative rights, it's, "What is the government forbidden to deny you?"

And even "personally speaking" you do not have a right to a job, even though a person offered you to work whenever you wish, because that person may freely deny you the ability to work there at any time; thus, if your "right" is able to be freely, justly, and unilaterally withdrawn by another, it's no right at all, in the sense that is at all germane to this discussion. You have no recourse in this case, and no ability to request a remedy from the government... so this "personal right" is really just a privilege, an allowance granted by another, to be withdrawn as they choose.

I didn't bother reading most of the replies to this thread, so forgive me if I'm repeating others. In the United States, you do not have the affirmative "right" to a job; that is, there is no constitutional or statutory guarantee of employment anywhere in the country. You do have the negative right to work, meaning that the government may not, except in due process of law, prevent you from, if you choose, offering your services to employers. Basically, you don't have a right to be employed, but you have a right to look for work.

Some may argue that it's a "human right" to have a job, but until that's codified in some fashion so as to have actual meaning beyond philosophy, it's pretty much idle talk.

You have a right to a wage equal to whatever brings equilibrium to labor supply and demand; in most cases, this is more than enough to support a family and maintain discretionary spending, but in others it isn't.

You don't have that right. You have the right to negotiate for the best salary you can get.

However, I support a living wage but not for the same reasons as others. It is a good idea only because it provides a price floor for labor that guarantees a constant surplus of unskilled labor, and that gives employers a lot more flexibility in hiring and firing these workers. It also reduces marginal costs like benefits or healthcare costs by giving employers a lot of flexibility to fire workers and reduces inflation by keeping unskilled unemployment constantly in the upper range of the Philips curve.

You're in fact no different from the other "minimum wage" advocates here. You just favour intervening in favour of business instead of the employee. In reality, the free market provides the best prices, no one has ever come up with a more workable alternative, and I don't think it is possible so to do. The employers are the best people to make the decision as to whether or not they should seek to purchase labour services, and it is more prudent, economically to leave them to make their decision without interference.

I certainly do have a right to a job, if I want one.

I shall deconstruct what you are saying: You are saying you have the right to stick a gun into an employer's ear, and demand money.

Whatever verbal dodges you use, you are simply saying you should be allowed to steal.

But you have the right to a living wage, be that from your government or your employer.

On what basis do you claim this, bearing in mind that you are simply saying you have the right to commit armed robbery?

If you want to debate the term 'right' this is not the thread for it. No hijacking allowed. There are plenty of old threads and new ones are welcome discussing that topic.

I agree with BWO, I want to see your (and Disrealiland's) opinion on what creates this right, what enforces this right.

On what basis do you claim this, bearing in mind that you are simply saying you have the right to commit armed robbery?

I did not say that. I said you had a right to a wage from your government provided so that you can afford the bare essentials of life. The reason being is that it is the government that created the system whereby you need money for life's bare essentialls hence it is their responsabity to see you have that money.

I did not say that. I said you had a right to a wage from your government provided so that you can afford the bare essentials of life. The reason being is that it is the government that created the system whereby you need money for life's bare essentialls hence it is their responsabity to see you have that money.

I'm not saying I disagree with the living wage - I feel it's a necessity for a society to ensure that there isn't widespread poverty, as a lack of impoverished populace is a social good we can all enjoy - but your reasoning is shoddy. The government doesn't create the system, it just oversees it. The distinction may be lost on some, but it's very important to note.

Even if the government did "create" the system, why is it, then, the government's responsibility to provide everyone with enough money to live comfortably in it? That's a logical leap that doesn't sit well. Toyota created my car, is it their job to ensure I have enough gas in it?

You're in fact no different from the other "minimum wage" advocates here. You just favour intervening in favour of business instead of the employee. In reality, the free market provides the best prices, no one has ever come up with a more workable alternative, and I don't think it is possible so to do. The employers are the best people to make the decision as to whether or not they should seek to purchase labour services, and it is more prudent, economically to leave them to make their decision without interference.


So you haven't answered the question of if in a free market why can't the position have it's salary range listed.

So besides the "I don't want to" arguments you have offered.

If you truely belive in the free market, what's wrong with posting the salary range?

I did not say that. I said you had a right to a wage from your government provided so that you can afford the bare essentials of life. The reason being is that it is the government that created the system whereby you need money for life's bare essentialls hence it is their responsabity to see you have that money.

Money, like virtually everything useful, was a creation of private enterprise. Governments took over money in order to finance more government through debasement.

In point of fact, you did advocate that you be given the right to rob people, even through the proxy of government. The reason I came to this conclusion is that with the money the government takes from the productive, you can buy actual goods and services. It is as though you stole these goods and services from the people who earned the money.

I did not say that. I said you had a right to a wage from your government provided so that you can afford the bare essentials of life. The reason being is that it is the government that created the system whereby you need money for life's bare essentialls hence it is their responsabity to see you have that money.

Where does that right come from?

The word right gets tossed around like candy. (I have been guilty of that mayself)

So you haven't answered the question of if in a free market why can't the position have it's salary range listed

Do you even read my posts. I will post the reply to your question again:

Forced to is a matter of opinion. The only one talking about being forced is you.

Not correct. And I quote:

On the other hand, I think that employers should be encouraged to pay a good wage through social pressure, such as public disclosure of wages paid for certain positions.


Clearly, such disclosure is firstly, not intended to be used for competition for the best workers, and secondly, intended to be involuntary. Were it voluntary, it would become entirely useless for the purpose Unrestrained Merrymaki advocated.

If Unrestrained Merrymaki had advocated purely voluntary disclosure, no one would do it, except in the prospective manner for the purpose of competing with other employers. They would certainly not disclose every wage scale so that the mob (sorry, "society") can scrutinise it, and give its approval, or disapproval. For this idea of "social pressure" to work, firms must be forced to disclose.

Also, where used to compete with other potential employers, the figure is disclosed before the deal and is an approximate figure subject to negotiation. The final figure may vary from the advertised figure, and that figure (which is the final figure representing the actual salary to be paid, plus other benefits etc) need not be published as it is no one else's business.

Money, like virtually everything useful, was a creation of private enterprise. Governments took over money in order to finance more government through debasement.

In point of fact, you did advocate that you be given the right to rob people, even through the proxy of government. The reason I came to this conclusion is that with the money the government takes from the productive, you can buy actual goods and services. It is as though you stole these goods and services from the people who earned the money.

I agree with you point, however I also see why there is a need for a government. The government is there to ensure property rights are protected and that there is a conducive environment for the market to operate in (civil war being an example where the government has failed in its obligation).

The government is also there to correct/deal with any points where the market fails (under provision of health care and education, goods where individual consumers can not be targeted correctly (street lighting is an example as it is difficult to determine who has used it and by how much) and finally to stop companies avoiding costs by off-loading them to unwilling others (e.g. pollution)).

I agree with the first paragraph.

I disagree with the second, and with a government monopoly on the money supply.

It is however, irrelevant to the thread, and best left to e-mail. Please feel free.

I agree with the first paragraph.

I disagree with the second, and with a government monopoly on the money supply.

It is however, irrelevant to the thread, and best left to e-mail. Please feel free.

yeah, sorry about going off topic it just that most people seem to agree now roughly on what the opening post said.

The main disputes at the moment are advertising/revealing salaries even when the participents do not want (which is off topic) and the definition of what is a right (on topic but I am not really knowledgable enough about the area to join in)

Cheers for the offer but I will decline for now though as I do not want to get into a heated debate today. I am just enjoying mainly watching the debates for now.

Yep the crappy attitude the French have about having a right to a job is why productivity will never be as high in France as it is in the United States.

Oh, wait a minute. Productivity is actually higher in France than the United States. Damn! Another beautiful theory slain!

(But their bugs do taste good.)

WEll duh. You just exposed your ecopnomic illiteracy. Productivity has nothing to do with having a right to a job and very little to do with wages or work ethic.

Hint - a person with a PC is much more expensive to set up than one without - but also more productive. What do you think happens in an environment hostile to hiring new employees?

Question: do I have a right to give somebody else a job?

You have a right to hire someone to work for you - but not the right to compel them to against their will.

It would appear that we also have the right to subjugate and enslave our neighbours by force.

At one time that was considered a right of a conquoring army. In the modern world slavery is illegal.

Lack of capital?


Nope - there are plenty of ways to work which require little or no capital. These folks obviously have enough capital to make signs...

It's just the same old points that we've all seen and refuted a million times before being rolled out again. It deserves nothing more.

That's almost as enlightened as your last statement. You really ARE a genius.

inherited wealth or a gift from someone to you, both of these avoid the particular person doing any work for the wealth.

You are wrong - they are both the result of a person who chooses to give the fruits of his labor to someone else. There is nothing wrong with that.

WEll duh. You just exposed your ecopnomic illiteracy. Productivity has nothing to do with having a right to a job and very little to do with wages or work ethic.

Hint - a person with a PC is much more expensive to set up than one without - but also more productive. What do you think happens in an environment hostile to hiring new employees?

I am assuming you are refering to this: As businesses are discouraged from taking on new employees due to government regulation they are more likely to invest in capital and so increaseing the producivity of each worker. This alludes to the point that French workers are more productive but also explains why there is high unemployment in France.

I am assuming you are refering to this: As businesses are discouraged from taking on new employees due to government regulation they are more likely to invest in capital and so increaseing the producivity of each worker. This alludes to the point that French workers are more productive but also explains why there is high unemployment in France.
But then again. Shorter workweeks and more vacation time might have something to do with it too.

But you have the right to a living wage, be that from your government or your employer.


No, you don't. You have to WORK for a wage. You have to negotiate a wage. The government can step in and create an artificial minimum starting point for negotiations. IT does not always work - as with the many illegal immigrants working in the US.

If your work is not up to par then you do not deserve a wage (often referred to as getting fired) If your work skills are not valueable you will not have very strong negotiating skills - which is why labor unions often exist - to leverage the negotiating power of unskilled laborers.

You are wrong - they are both the result of a person who chooses to give the fruits of his labor to someone else. There is nothing wrong with that.

I agree, though your point does not invalidate mine because I was referring to only the receiver of the wealth. i meant that the person who receives the wealth has the option to not work if they choose to do so. I did not deny that the wealth was generated by someone else.

Of course you don't have a right to work; jobs are not created for workers, they are created because companies need people to perform tasks and increase their ability to produce their products and generate additional revenue and profits.

Companies don't hire for the sake of hiring; they only hire when their needs require it and there are no cheaper ways to create the same benefits as additional staff. They hire because of demand and supply factors, and if those factors are not present they do not hire or even reduce staff.

Remember the circular flow model; companies pay workers and purchase production factors with revenue that comes from sales of their products and services. If the revenue is not there and is not growing fast enough to require additional staff, companies will not hire because it would crimp profits used to increase future revenue.

In reality, you would not have a right to a job unless all companies were required to hire a certain number of people, and that in turn would require a mandantory amount of spending in the economy necessary to sustain that level of hiring. Of course, this is both economically disasterous and reduces the rights of individuals far more than at-will employment ever could.


Reasonable logic - except you overlook that you don't need 'a company' in order to find profitable work.

I certainly do have a right to a job, if I want one.


No, you don't. You cannot compel anyone to pay you (legally)

You do have the right to work. Her is a place you can start;


http://www.motherearthnews.com/library/1978_July_August/How_To_Work_for_Yourself

Don't wait for the job to come to you.

I support a living wage, not because of some notion of a "right" but because it is an economically good idea for employers.
An idea pioneered by Andrew Carnegie and Henry Ford.

I agree with BWO, I want to see your (and Disrealiland's) opinion on what creates this right, what enforces this right.

Our founding fathers considered certain rights inalienable, including life, lioberty and the pursuit of happiness. The pursuit of happiness can include, among other things, the right to pursue economic gain through work.

I did not say that. I said you had a right to a wage from your government provided so that you can afford the bare essentials of life. The reason being is that it is the government that created the system whereby you need money for life's bare essentialls hence it is their responsabity to see you have that money.

newsflash - the government did not create economics. They, nor anyone else, has any responsibility for your finances. Only you do. (which is both the bad news AND the good news)

So you haven't answered the question of if in a free market why can't the position have it's salary range listed.

So besides the "I don't want to" arguments you have offered.

If you truely belive in the free market, what's wrong with posting the salary range?

A salary ranve is simply a statement of the value of the skill sets to perform the task. It is a beginning of the negotiations phase. If someone is willing to do it for less and they are competent then the employer would not be bound to pay more. Conversly, if nobody were willing to perform the task within the stated range the employer would have to increase it or leave the task unaddressed.

You too, however, have fallen into the deep trap of presuming all work comes from employers. It does not - making the issue of 'salary ranges' completely moot.

I agree with you point, however I also see why there is a need for a government. The government is there to ensure property rights are protected and that there is a conducive environment for the market to operate in (civil war being an example where the government has failed in its obligation).
You are correct in that point. A government has to provide contract arbitration, safe business environment, standards measurements and rules, etc. Without this framework business would be virtually impossible to conduct.


The government is also there to correct/deal with any points where the market fails (under provision of health care and education, goods where individual consumers can not be targeted correctly (street lighting is an example as it is difficult to determine who has used it and by how much) and finally to stop companies avoiding costs by off-loading them to unwilling others (e.g. pollution)).
On this you are mostly right, except it is not where the market fails so much as where there is no market - and even that is speculative and artificial - there is a healthy market for healthcare and a developing one for education as the public one continues to fail (ironicaly, the inverse of your statement).

I am assuming you are refering to this: As businesses are discouraged from taking on new employees due to government regulation they are more likely to invest in capital and so increaseing the producivity of each worker. This alludes to the point that French workers are more productive but also explains why there is high unemployment in France.
They invest capital, not in capital. Otherwise you are pretty much correct. French workers have higher productivity because it is cheaper for the employers to buy expensive robots or other devices than nations with lower employment barries who just hire people to do the task.

They invest capital, not in capital. Otherwise you are pretty much correct. French workers have higher productivity because it is cheaper for the employers to buy expensive robots or other devices than nations with lower employment barries who just hire people to do the task.

Sorry, I always thought capital was the factories, machines and tools. Your defintion of capital is the money itself.

It has been so long since I studied basic economics.

Socialism is it's own argument against itself - there is no need.

Or better said, you don't have any ? ;)

The right to work is a primary issue of life. It means you do not have to sit around waiting for someone else to offer you a job. It means that you do not need to depend on anyone else - government or corporation to provide for you. It means you can provide for yourself.

Sure, law of the jungle, walk or die, each for himself, and too bad for those who fail. Sorry, that's what the whole thing called "civilalisation" is all about; securing lives of the people in the community, protecting them against "bad luck" or mistakes that everyone can do. What you are pleading for is just barabian.

The French seem to think that they have a right to a job provided by someone else - hence all of their labor laws.

Since it's inside the UN Human Rights Declaration, I doubt we are the only ones to think so. But saddly, in France, since we are a capitalist country, this right is only on paper - not in reality. But that's one of the reasons of the social help: failure to reach full employment is a fault of the governement, which doesn't fulfill its social contract with the people, and therefore has to compensate.

People take to the streets and complain about not having jobs but there is nothing preventing the vast majority of them from creating their own! Imagine how dynamic France would be if all of the young people - instead of crying about tenure - stepped up and created their own jobs.

Step away from your mickey world, and come back to reality. You CANNOT create job by your own without already having money, and without having friends or family able to support you (with money, contacts, advises, ...). Something the huge majority of youths just don't have.

If you don't have the skills then go out and get them - you have the ability to learn (and the French are among the highest educated in the world!)

How do you learn, if you don't have money ? How do you pay the university fees ? How do you pay the books, the Internet connection ? The food while you study ? The house you live in ? The transport to university ? There is around 1 MILLION of french students forced to work on night jobs to pay their study - how can you expect them to have a high success rate if they need to sell hamburgers in mcdonalds from 8pm to 12pm everyday ?

Success is not predicated by anyone else but you. In order to succeed you have to do something.

Success is first of all predicated by the wealth in which you are born. On the luck you have to meet the right friends. On the luck you have to have a good teacher. On the luck you have to not have disabilities, and so on.

The point of theis thread is the most important one you could hope for; It is that YOU do not need to depend on anyone.

Wake up. We are in a society, not in a jungle. Everyone depends of many others - if not on everyone.

You say that like nothing causes it. As though capital fell from the skies, or was apportioned by the Great Apocalyptic Voodoo Monkey Of The Sky.

Capital comes from your parents, nearly always. The rest of the time, from friends or "associates".

There are reasons people don't want to invest in France.

Many people do. But do you really think they'll give money to a 22 years old guy from a suburbs, with no experience, no personal fund, and just a uni diploma as sole capital ? And that's for one lucky enough to have a uni diploma...

Why don't you research them?

There is capital. Much more than ever. Profits are skyrocketing. But the capital is also more concentrated than ever. And the 3 millions who demonstrated won't see much the color of it - unless we take it, and restribute it.

Our founding fathers considered certain rights inalienable, including life, lioberty and the pursuit of happiness. The pursuit of happiness can include, among other things, the right to pursue economic gain through work.

So the right has its basis in our earliest legislation?

Capital comes from your parents, nearly always. The rest of the time, from friends or "associates".

Bullocks, there are very few people whose operating capital actually was directly inherited.

There is capital. Much more than ever. Profits are skyrocketing. But the capital is also more concentrated than ever. And the 3 millions who demonstrated won't see much the color of it - unless we take it, and restribute it.

Do you have any evidence that shows profit margins are skyrocketing?

A salary ranve is simply a statement of the value of the skill sets to perform the task. It is a beginning of the negotiations phase. If someone is willing to do it for less and they are competent then the employer would not be bound to pay more. Conversly, if nobody were willing to perform the task within the stated range the employer would have to increase it or leave the task unaddressed.

It's perceived value actually. Not every employer has the understanding of the value of the skill sets. For example, the IT world. Some understand that a WAN engineer is more specialized then a network administrator. Yet, I come across many managers who want the knowledge of the engineer for the cost of the administrator.

You too, however, have fallen into the deep trap of presuming all work comes from employers. It does not - making the issue of 'salary ranges' completely moot.

If they were moot then people would not be collecting information on what a job pays in every state.

Capital comes from your parents, nearly always. The rest of the time, from friends or "associates".

No I am afraid it doesn't. My parents gave me and my sister nothing. Most of the people I know didn't get help from their parents either.

Reasonable logic - except you overlook that you don't need 'a company' in order to find profitable work.

Self employment is a little different; the whole issue of compensation and the "right to a job" is not important because you are the one who decides how much you make and how well your enterprise does, and you are both employer and employee.

An idea pioneered by Andrew Carnegie and Henry Ford.

Yes, and even better it's a fivefold benefit:

First, employees earn more money which means they will spend more and drive overall economic growth which translates in to more revenue for the company through indirect demand for their products created by growth in related indutries.

Second, it creates an efficiency wage that increases the overall productivity of workers which mitigates the cost of higher wages. It also decreases turnover, which reduces training and recruitment/clerical costs and further mitigates the cost of the wage increase.

Third, it creates a price floor for unskilled labor that ensures a steady surplus of it; in the event that a hired worker is not performing to the best of their ability they can be replaced without the demand-driven wage inflation present in a tight labor market because that sector of the labor market is always below full employment.

Fourth, it reduces the risk of employees unionizing since their wage already covers cost-of-living and basic expenses; this saves the company money by reducing the risk of both higher marginal costs and the complications associated with negotiation of contracts and collective bargaining.

And fifth, it helps poor workers maintain the income necessary to get themselves out of low wage, low skill occupations or at least maintain a decent standard of living so that their children can have the opportunities they do not.

I am assuming you are refering to this: As businesses are discouraged from taking on new employees due to government regulation they are more likely to invest in capital and so increaseing the producivity of each worker. This alludes to the point that French workers are more productive but also explains why there is high unemployment in France.

Not really. French workers are more productive because we have good education (because it's governement controlled and paid), good infrastructures, especially in electricity and public transports (governement controlled), good healthcare (mostly governement controlled and paid), and strict workers protection law, allowing workers more free time and better protection. So french workers are less tired, less stressed, and therefore do less mistakes.

The reduction of weekly work hours from 39 to 35 done by the previous governement leaded to an important increase of hourly productivity, nearly compensating for the reduction of worked hours. And it reduced unemployment, both by liberating jobs, and by creating new ones in leasure or tourism area (people having more free time, they use those more).

They invest capital, not in capital. Otherwise you are pretty much correct. French workers have higher productivity because it is cheaper for the employers to buy expensive robots or other devices than nations with lower employment barries who just hire people to do the task.

That's just a tiny part of it (and not even proven, workers protection laws have been damaged those previous years, and we didn't notice any new job creation). That we have a very good quality eletricity and transport network is also a huge part of it. That we have a very good education system also. And so on, cf my previous post.

Sorry, I always thought capital was the factories, machines and tools. Your defintion of capital is the money itself.

It has been so long since I studied basic economics.

You are right. Capital is everything used as a basis to produce other things but not directly consumed by the process (ie, not ressources), be it money, factories, tools, land, skill, knowledge, ... even things like fame and brand image can be considered "capital".

Sure, law of the jungle, walk or die, each for himself, and too bad for those who fail. Sorry, that's what the whole thing called "civilalisation" is all about; securing lives of the people in the community, protecting them against "bad luck" or mistakes that everyone can do. What you are pleading for is just barabian.
Same tired old story - yet still people succeed every day.

Since it's inside the UN Human Rights Declaration, I doubt we are the only ones to think so. But saddly, in France, since we are a capitalist country, this right is only on paper - not in reality. But that's one of the reasons of the social help: failure to reach full employment is a fault of the governement, which doesn't fulfill its social contract with the people, and therefore has to compensate.
ROFLMAO!!! Um, you can say they put the right to have three tits in that and it wouldn't make you any more right - now would it make that idea.

Step away from your mickey world, and come back to reality. You CANNOT create job by your own without already having money, and without having friends or family able to support you (with money, contacts, advises, ...). Something the huge majority of youths just don't have.
Then who made the first job? Hahahaha!

How do you learn, if you don't have money ? How do you pay the university fees ? How do you pay the books, the Internet connection ? The food while you study ? The house you live in ? The transport to university ? There is around 1 MILLION of french students forced to work on night jobs to pay their study - how can you expect them to have a high success rate if they need to sell hamburgers in mcdonalds from 8pm to 12pm everyday ?
In the US you are given thirteen years of free education and offered an additional four more years of subsidezed education. You make the foolhardy mistake of thinking that someone without a degree is unemployable - which is very very wrong. But then - you oughta be used to it by now.

[Success is first of all predicated by the wealth in which you are born. On the luck you have to meet the right friends. On the luck you have to have a good teacher. On the luck you have to not have disabilities, and so on.
Um, wrong. Like usual. Your success is predicated by, more than anything else - you. (provided you live in a free country instead of say, North Korea)
http://millennianet.com/tseveran/rept001.htm
How do self-made millionaires make their money? Research has shown that, of today's self-made millionaires, approximately 10% have made it as highly paid executives in the corporate world, 10% made it as professionals (doctors, lawyers, etc.), 5% have made it in sales, and 1% have made it in miscellaneous activities such as entertainment, inventions, lottery, etc. However, a full 74% of self-made millionaires made their money with their own business

Wake up. We are in a society, not in a jungle. Everyone depends of many others - if not on everyone.
No, but you are close. By utilising our freedom and personal responsibility we are able to fully benefit (or suffer) from self-determination. Those who are successful at this benefit not only themselves, but the entire community proportionate to their success due to the interconnected relationship of an economy. THAT is civilization - not some fairytale about free money for everyone.

Capital comes from your parents, nearly always. The rest of the time, from friends or "associates". wrong. Capital comes from work and resource utilization. Parents may give it to their children - but it is still the result of work and resource utilization.
Many people do. But do you really think they'll give money to a 22 years old guy from a suburbs, with no experience, no personal fund, and just a uni diploma as sole capital ? And that's for one lucky enough to have a uni diploma... First of all - you don't need someone to give you capital - you can earn it or create it yourself. You don't get handed a job just because you have a degree and you don't get handed capital just because you have an idea. You have to earn it. You likely will have to start with something simpler and work your way up to your full potential the old fashioned way - you don't get to start at the top in the real world. Not even in the middle. You earn your way there - even (and especially) when you are your own boss.

There is capital. Much more than ever. Profits are skyrocketing. But the capital is also more concentrated than ever. And the 3 millions who demonstrated won't see much the color of it - unless we take it, and restribute it. ROFLMAO! There you go! Steal what you cannot earn yourself! That is always so much easier! Property rights are so not in vogue! Lets take the casiono's away from the indians and let them eat bugs and squish frogs! They should be used to it by now!

So the right has its basis in our earliest legislation?


No - it was described as inalienable - that is an important descriptor - placing it beyond law.

Do you have any evidence that shows profit margins are skyrocketing?
Actually, profits are always setting new records - it is natural, but margins are actually being squeezed.

..you don't even have a right to work.

I mean, if we're getting dead basic about it, you're right to work depends entirely on you having the ability to defend yourself while you do so. If you're "work" is, say, being David Koresh or Osama Bin Laden, or I think it's been shown that there really is no "right" to it.

Beyond the right to try to defend what we have or do, we have no rights beyond what society grants. Anybody who thinks their "rights" will protect them is in for a cold shock if society decides things should go another way.

As an example, currently our society bases division of resources primarily on who has the most. In the past it's been things as varied as first-come, first-serve, skin-color, blood-line, and combat skill that helped to determine who had the "right" to property.

So any declarations that a person or group of people have a certain right is, at best, indicating what rights they have or feel they should have, and I'm finding it increasingly annoying the number of people around here who bleat about various rights like it actually means something. It strikes me as trying to short-cut moral thinking. Instead of thinking about why someone should be able to work but perhaps not have a job, it's instead just ending the discussion with "because they have a right to." Not good enough, in my opinion.

Give reasons why such a thing is good or bad for the society, because in the long run, the society is what gets to decide whether it's useful.

It's perceived value actually. Not every employer has the understanding of the value of the skill sets. For example, the IT world. Some understand that a WAN engineer is more specialized then a network administrator. Yet, I come across many managers who want the knowledge of the engineer for the cost of the administrator.
Well of course they do. And I've met many customers who want Tiffany's merchandise at Walmart prices. Don't mean they're right - just that they're idiots. You were talking about managers, right? (heh)

If they were moot then people would not be collecting information on what a job pays in every state.
What does that have to do with self-employment? I don't think were are talking about the same thing. Anyone who is collecting data on job pay is really not looking to be self employed.

Nope - there are plenty of ways to work which require little or no capital. These folks obviously have enough capital to make signs...
Can you give a couple of examples which won't result in stupid amounts of competition? Get real. To compete in the modern market you need startup capital.

No, you don't. You have to WORK for a wage. You have to negotiate a wage. The government can step in and create an artificial minimum starting point for negotiations. IT does not always work - as with the many illegal immigrants working in the US.
So, you think that people don't have a right to a job and don't have a right to a welfare payment. But they do have a right to work which can often be as useful as the quadraplegic's right to walk.

B0zzy, do you think that people have a right to live?

Our founding fathers considered certain rights inalienable, including life, lioberty and the pursuit of happiness. The pursuit of happiness can include, among other things, the right to pursue economic gain through work.
These only apply in the USA.

newsflash - the government did not create economics. They, nor anyone else, has any responsibility for your finances. Only you do. (which is both the bad news AND the good news)
The government did create the economic system within its nation, or at least set the controls for the citizens to create it. The government prints money, and protects private property rights.

Sure, law of the jungle, walk or die, each for himself, and too bad for those who fail. Sorry, that's what the whole thing called "civilalisation" is all about; securing lives of the people in the community, protecting them against "bad luck" or mistakes that everyone can do. What you are pleading for is just barabian
B0zzy may not know it, but capitalism is not the law of the jungle. It's a government-organised and protected economic system.

ROFLMAO!!! Um, you can say they put the right to have three tits in that and it wouldn't make you any more right - now would it make that idea.
I don't see how the US Declaration of Independence has any more credibility.

Then who made the first job? Hahahaha!
Does it matter?

Um, wrong. Like usual. Your success is predicated by, more than anything else - you. (provided you live in a free country instead of say, North Korea)
http://millennianet.com/tseveran/rept001.htm

Most people remain in the same economic class that they were born into.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060427/us_nm/economy_mobility_dc_3

First of all - you don't need someone to give you capital - you can earn it or create it yourself.
How can you earn it? Remember, the reason you're making your own job is because no-one else will employ you.

How can you create it? Only the government may create money.

No - it was described as inalienable - that is an important descriptor - placing it beyond law.

Then what gives it that inalienable status?

Self employment is a little different; the whole issue of compensation and the "right to a job" is not important because you are the one who decides how much you make and how well your enterprise does, and you are both employer and employee.

THere is no "right to a job" and self employment is the ultimate modern expression of the "Right to work".

That's just a tiny part of it (and not even proven, workers protection laws have been damaged those previous years, and we didn't notice any new job creation). That we have a very good quality eletricity and transport network is also a huge part of it. That we have a very good education system also. And so on, cf my previous post.

Your previous post was the regurgitation of so much government propoganda without supporting evidence I found it dizzying. The 25 hour week created jobs? LOL. Best healthcare - so long as it's not during vacation season. I'm not saying that the current French version of these things is bad - but few expect that they will get better and will likely get worse without significant reform. 20% - 50% unemployment among young adults is the cost of your 'increased' productivity. No thanks.

You are right. Capital is everything used as a basis to produce other things but not directly consumed by the process (ie, not ressources), be it money, factories, tools, land, skill, knowledge, ... even things like fame and brand image can be considered "capital".


Depending how it is used we're both right;
http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/capital

a)Wealth in the form of money or property, used or accumulated in a business by a person, partnership, or corporation.
b)Material wealth used or available for use in the production of more wealth.
c)Human resources considered in terms of their contributions to an economy:

But, since it would not make much sense to say "We invested in more material wealth ... for use in the production of more wealth" then my definition in that circumstance was more correct.

Can you give a couple of examples which won't result in stupid amounts of competition? Get real. To compete in the modern market you need startup capital.
http://www.inc.com/guides/finance/20797.html
http://www.sba.gov/starting_business/financing/estimating.html
http://www.business.gov/phases/launching/finance_startup/index.html
http://www.entrepreneur.com/article/0,4621,297350,00.html
http://www.enquirer.com/editions/2001/02/18/fin_self-employed_found.html
http://certcities.com/editorial/features/story.asp?EditorialsID=46

Child care, computer service, small appliacnce repair, handyman, landscaping, painting, answering service, auto detailing, cosmetologist, manicurist, cleaning service, caterer, EBAY reseller, I can go on...

It does not take much effort to search. All of which beat poverty and all of which can lead to greater and greater opportunities. (develop the business or earn capital to go in more expensive businesses)

nee-ner nee-ner

So, you think that people don't have a right to a job and don't have a right to a welfare payment. But they do have a right to work which can often be as useful as the quadraplegic's right to walk.

B0zzy, do you think that people have a right to live?
In fact yes, I do - and welfare ain't living. Welfare reform has been a tremendous success in reducing poverty. Personal responsibility and self-sufficinency is the greatest gift of all.

These only apply in the USA.
Inalienable rights are universal. People can have their rights infringed - as in North Korea, but they still have them.

The government did create the economic system within its nation, or at least set the controls for the citizens to create it. The government prints money, and protects private property rights.
Economics is a natural and almost organic thing. The government can attempt to regulate it, but tehy do not create it.

B0zzy may not know it, but capitalism is not the law of the jungle. It's a government-organised and protected economic system.

I don't see how the US Declaration of Independence has any more credibility.

Um, it does not. IT is simply one of the more well know documents which ascertains that the pursuit of happiness is an inalienable right. It canot be granted by anyone - only infringed.

Does it matter? (who made the first job?)
Absolutely... under your system. You did say essentially that there cannot be a job wihtout an employer, and there cannot be an empoloyer without capital. Therefore the first job becomes an impossible event - making your poi


Most people remain in the same economic class that they were born into.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060427/us_nm/economy_mobility_dc_3YOu couldn't be more wrong, most people don't get into the top 5% demographic is the actual point - which is one of those 'duh' points. That atrticle is written with an apologetic bullshit POV. If you read it through you will see it eventually says that over 50% of poor children will not be poor when they are adults. (at least within their survey period - whenever taht was) You consider that bad? - I consider that proof of opportunity - particularly when you consider how many 'poor' we import each year - it is a constantly refreshing pool. What is more distressing is this part;"The chances of getting rich are about 20 times higher if you are born rich than if you are born in a low-income family,"...if you're "born rich" you don't have to "get" rich, you already are - a more valid question would be why do so many people born rich not end up that way when they are adults?

At one time that was considered a right of a conquoring army. In the modern world slavery is illegal.

So? What does legality have to do with rights?

Then what gives it that inalienable status?

That is a point to discuss with philosophers, not lawmakers. (or strangers on the internet) :)

That is a point to discuss with philosophers, not lawmakers. (or strangers on the internet) :)
Cop-out.

So? What does legality have to do with rights?

Ahh, you are catching on! Good.

The answer is - of course, contingient on the law and the nature of the government decreeing the laws. "The pursuit of happiness" albeit an inalienable (and therefore universal) right wasn't extended to slaves and indentured servants for nearly 100 years. The rights were always there, but the government allowed them to be infringed.

Cop-out.

Cop out or succesfully deflecting a hijack attempt (unintentional though it may have been) - you decide.

Cop out or succesfully deflecting a hijack attempt (unintentional though it may have been) - you decide.
Or completely on-topic. You argue on the basis of certain rights being inalienable and when someone calls you on it, you try to deflect.

Ahh, you are catching on! Good.

The answer is - of course, contingient on the law and the nature of the government decreeing the laws. "The pursuit of happiness" albeit an inalienable (and therefore universal) right wasn't extended to slaves and indentured servants for nearly 100 years. The rights were always there, but the government allowed them to be infringed.

So, the alleged right to work isn't one granted, but one which you consdier implicit in our very nature?



Yes, this does bring us back to the' right' to metabolise fructose again.

That is a point to discuss with philosophers, not lawmakers. (or strangers on the internet) :)

So you are basing your argument on the authority of a 230 year old document that isn't actually legislation?

Cop out or succesfully deflecting a hijack attempt (unintentional though it may have been) - you decide.

It wasn't a hijack attempt. I asked you where the right comes from, and you replied that it came from the founding fathers belief that we had a right to "the pursuit of happiness," either you accept that it the right is based in our early legislation, or you provide reason why it is inalienable. Either you are appealing to Jefferson's declaration, or you are agreeing with Jefferson that no appeal to law is necessary.

I'm usually first in line to issue a "the Declaration isn't codified law" counter to people who think that the right to the pursuit of happiness is the justification for just about anything they feel like doing. It's my belief that Jefferson, while writing the Declaration, was more interested in an artful turn of phrase than a thorough account of human rights. Then, as now, it must have been obvious that the right to the "pursuit of happiness" can be easily and greatly abused. That it is conspicuously absent in the Constitution is evidence of this. We can therefore reason that this statement of rights was intended as a general overview, with certain limitations.

The term "inalienable" does NOT mean that it can be in no way restricted, just that it cannot be transferred, forfeited, or rescinded. So while you may have the inalienable, God-given right to pursue happiness, this cannot be extended indefinitely to all areas of human conduct. It goes back to that old First Amendment chestnut: "Freedom is not license."

So you are basing your argument on the authority of a 230 year old document that isn't actually legislation?

...and which only applies to a minority of forumites.

WEll duh. You just exposed your ecopnomic illiteracy. Productivity has nothing to do with having a right to a job and very little to do with wages or work ethic.

So it makes no difference if people think they have a right to a job or not? I figured that much, but thanks for clearing it up. It's a bit of a long thread, but then threads about stuff that doesn't matter are usually the longest.

Like... all of the Native Americans?

Native American schnative american!

They are just immigrants same as evertbody else.

They walked over from Asia on a land bridge

Early American Immigrants...that's what they are.

Native American schnative american!

They are just immigrants same as evertbody else.

They walked over from Asia on a land bridge

Early American Immigrants...that's what they are.

Very good point. They are just immigrants like everybody else. I mean sure, there was no political units existing for them to immigrate to, but that doesn't mean anything. And the fact that Europeans had a habit of killing them isn't important even though you'll generally you'll find that immigrants these days don't kill the people already living in the country. And just because immigrants these days need permission to come into the country doesn't mean anything. And the fact that immigrants these days are considered to have human rights and generally don't bring in diseases that no one has resistance to isn't a real difference. So apart from those few minor differences, you are completely right. Native Americans are immigrants just like everybody else.

Or completely on-topic. You argue on the basis of certain rights being inalienable and when someone calls you on it, you try to deflect.

No, the topic of this thread is "Jobs are not a right" - not 'what are rights'. There may be a relationship but the topics are distict. You may as well attempt to define what 'is'; is.

It wasn't a hijack attempt. I asked you where the right comes from, and you replied that it came from the founding fathers belief that we had a right to "the pursuit of happiness," either you accept that it the right is based in our early legislation, or you provide reason why it is inalienable. Either you are appealing to Jefferson's declaration, or you are agreeing with Jefferson that no appeal to law is necessary.


Jefferson did not define inalienable rights. The rights existed before Jefferson's ancestors could spell inalienable.

But, since you all are so hung up on this, here;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inalienable_rights

and an argument against here;
http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-rights.htm

I frankly agree that certain rights ARE inalienable (including pursuit of happiness). The author of the second piece ignoresa the fact that just because an entity ignores a given right does not mean that it does not exist. (for example - you have a right to life but a criminal could choose to violate it - but he cannot revoke it.)

Since I am the thread author this is where the discussion ends. This is the meaning of 'rights' as I inteded them and no longer subject to interpretation. If you choose to interpret it differently than you are no longer addressing the construct of my point. If you wish to debate the origin and meaning of rights now - go away and start a thread about that.

So it makes no difference if people think they have a right to a job or not? I figured that much, but thanks for clearing it up. It's a bit of a long thread, but then threads about stuff that doesn't matter are usually the longest.

Explain how you draw that conclusion from worker productivity. Your logic is severly flawed as far as what you have shared so far.

Since I am the thread author this is where the discussion ends. This is the meaning of 'rights' as I inteded them and no longer subject to interpretation. If you choose to interpret it differently than you are no longer addressing the construct of my point. If you wish to debate the origin and meaning of rights now - go away and start a thread about that.

Then what is the point of this thread?

You tell us what rights we have and not have, yet you do not allow discussion on why we have rights or what the purpose of a right is.

Then what is the point of this thread?
I'm guessing the troll was hungry. That's all.

Then what is the point of this thread?

You tell us what rights we have and not have, yet you do not allow discussion on why we have rights or what the purpose of a right is.

This thread was never intended to be a discussion about rights nor about what they are - it is a discussion of the difference between work and a job and the implications they have on personal responsibility. If you wish to discuss those things there is nothing to stop you from starting such a thread - but it is not part orf this topic nor welcome here. If you have diffuclty seperating these distinct issues then I suggest you refrain from participating.

This thread was never intended to be a discussion about rights nor about what they are - it is a discussion of the difference between work and a job and the implications they have on personal responsibility.

So, you're basically saying that the detainees at Guantanamo have been abused by having had their ability to work taken away from them, and thus their rights infringed?

So, you're basically saying that the detainees at Guantanamo have been abused by having had their ability to work taken away from them, and thus their rights infringed?

WTF? IF you haven't noticed - anyone in prison has a vast majority of their rights infringed - it is kind of the whole point of prison.

WTF? IF you haven't noticed - anyone in prison has a vast majority of their rights infringed - it is kind of the whole point of prison.

So, if we accept prisons as a currently inescapable* part of the state, then the purpose of the state is to infiringe the rights of its populace?


* no pun intended.

So, if we accept prisons as a currently inescapable* part of the state, then the purpose of the state is to infiringe the rights of its populace?


* no pun intended.

Actually, yes - look close at my signature. Many of the US founding fathers considered government and the centralization of power a dangerous but neccessary evil. Nearly all of the original documents of the US congress and before (bill of rights comes to mind) were made to limit US government power rather than to create governmental power..

Bah, this thread seems to have run it's course - no point in trying to keep it to the original topic any more.


ROFLMAO - I laughed at your 'no pun'. Thanks.