Skip to main content

View Diary: The Right To A Job (25 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  One thing missing... (0+ / 0-)

    There is no "right to a job".  Now the opportunity, or pursuit...is a right (writ large), but not the job itself.  

    You do have a legit concern about unemployment in America, as we all do.  Albeit, jobs are not something that the GOV "must" provide.  That is irrational.

    Your "Six degrees of Kevin Bacon" connecting the "right to life" to the "right to a job" would have a lot of emotionally-driven people believing that the "right to work" is an absolute.  However, it's wrong.

    You are correct though, about the inability on both sides (or any side) to identify rights.  I think we can all agree on that.  

    By the way, are you a lawyer?  (Not poking fun).  I ask that only because you did a good job composing the arguement to begin with.

    "Being "bipolar" is not an excuse, fucko". - me

    by Sarge From Wackbag on Fri Jan 27, 2012 at 01:34:59 AM PST

    •  Irrational? (0+ / 0-)

      I have to disagree with you on this Sarge. The right to life has many meanings or corollaries. Survival is a day to day necessity and we have evolved to the point as a society where we have put a requirement on an individual's ability to provide for his survival--- that requirement is cash. Every privately owned business has the right to deny you a job but no-one has the right to deny you the ability to provide for yourself. If cash is a prerequisite to exercising that most fundamental of rights than the only institution with the power to protect that right is government. The government must maintain the possibility of 100% employment for all Americans at all times. There are several ways it can do this just use your imagination. No I am not a lawyer but thanks for that compliment. I actually work at a dry cleaners pressing shirts for rich people. Mindless work but it allows me to think about politics and philosophy all day with an eye towards becoming a writer ( I will consider all offers people!!!). I have dozens of arguments as good if not better than The Right To A Job but I am a snail on the keyboard. By the way,  EVERYONE is bipolar.

      •  Again... (0+ / 0-)

        no one is infringing on the "right to provide" or pursue, since everyone makes their own way, fate, etc.  There just isn't a "right to work" or a "right to a job", even alluded to in the Constitution.  That is why your take, in contrast to the founding document, is irrational (not you as a whole, albeit); although I know where you were getting at and understand your frustration.  It is quite a stretch, though.
        In a different society, it might work.  However, we now call it the Former Soviet Union.  Speaking of; the demonstrators, Europe-wide, are bitching about the same thing...the right to work.  Problem is, there aren't any jobs.  Know why?  

        Greed.  

        Which is another human trait we all have.  Some less than others, but we all have it.  Until it's mandated that people stop being greedy, we have Capitalism, (sick, isn't it?).  What's the alternative?  Standing in line for bread, rice, etc. because it should be a "right"?  Either way, we make our own life, since "both 'wings' have their 'nuts'" (QUOTE ME, it's trademarked!) and can't decide which side of their pants are the heaviest with money.
        - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

        On another take...you wrote:

        "EVERYONE is bipolar".

        There's always a bit of it in everyone.

        Now for the present, if I may.  I think you have a great opportunity with the job you are at.  It's simple...

        "accidentally" leave a note in any item of clothing, post-press.  The note should have a saying (one of yours) or your website, if you have one.  Once curiosity strikes JUST ONE individual...BAM!  They then are able to read your compositions.  You never know.  The next shirt you press, could be that of a publisher.

        Pursuit, thy name is opportunity.

        "Being "bipolar" is not an excuse, fucko". - me

        by Sarge From Wackbag on Sun Jan 29, 2012 at 08:07:12 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  That's the problem (0+ / 0-)

          isn't it, capitalism? Everyone seems to think that capitalism is a viable economic theory or system-- it isn't. Even Ayn Rand said that capitalism has never existed on this earth. What she failed to realize and what everyone else fails to realize is that it can't because it is only one half of the whole. The other is of course socialism. All of the success of capitalism has only been possible because of the socialist foundation that it was built on. This foundation consists of the public roads and schools just to name two. No business could ever have been successful if the citizens of this country hadn't pooled their money together to provide these services. Now even if a business does pay it's fair share of taxes it is still just a share. And when we share the cost of something it's called socialism. As for greed, the Constitution gives us the right to regulate interstate commerce. There is no limit on this power in the document. Because We The People shoulder MOST of the cost of doing business we have the right to limit just how much wealth an individual can acquire. You probably don't want to hear that but it is nevertheless true. Money itself is the property of the people i.e. the government. Business is entirely dependent on govt. because business wants to acquire cash and cash gets its value from the government. Without government there can be no cash. Business can operate without cash of course but the barter system is severely primitive and there can be no profit. The key principle in all of this is of course the principle of dependence. As an individual (capitalist) you are entirely dependent on society and government and not just in the business arena. Government depends on business  to produce tax revenues sure but the govt.does not depend on any one business for it, whereas every business is dependent on the one government to shoulder most of its costs: roads, schools, police, fire, courts, prisons, patent and copyright protection, to foster trade agreements with other nations etc, so on and so forth. Chew on that for a little while and get back to me and thanks for the correspondence it is much appreciated.---  Jay

          •  Interesting you say... (0+ / 0-)

            "...we have the right to limit just how much wealth an individual can acquire."

            How so?  And by "we" you mean........?

            By the way, agreed on the good banter. -- Rich

            "Being "bipolar" is not an excuse, fucko". - me

            by Sarge From Wackbag on Tue Jan 31, 2012 at 07:55:56 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Like this (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Sarge From Wackbag

              First off, by we I mean us, the people, through our congress.  In the Constitution there are no limits on the power to regulate commerce, but I know that isn't going to satisfy you so we need to get down to the brass tacks. In theory and in principle, under the current "capitalist" system it is possible, though not likely, that an individual could acquire ALL the wealth in the country. This would of course  be devastating to our economy especially if that person had  nefarious motives. Currently, just a handful of people control a disproportionate amount of our nation's wealth and look at where we are now. The problem with our economy is that too much wealth is lying stagnant in the hands of a very few people who didn't earn it in the first place. And by that I mean the financial sector. Banks and mortgage companies, brokerage houses and insurance cos. produce nothing, not a cent of wealth, yet they control most of it. All of those entities should be govt. agencies operating at 0% profit because they produce nothing. They are parasites on the backs of the working people. Now, back to my first point--- because it is possible for an individual to acquire all the wealth yet it is physically impossible for him to PRODUCE all the wealth the theory of capitalism is inherently flawed. The most important thing I ever learned from reading Ayn Rand was this rule of principles: If a principle is sound, then it will remain sound  at the most extreme as well as the most fundamental level. Ironically, Capitalism's most vociferous protagonist (RAND) would show the way to its undoing.
              It is impossible to produce all the wealth yet possible to acquire it-- this doesn't make sense, therefore capitalism is proven to be flawed. Because of this you now have a case for a limit on personal wealth. The Constitution prescribes to the government the role of promoting the general welfare. If it is detrimental to the welfare of the nation to allow one person or even a few people to control vast amounts of wealth ( and it is ) then the govt. should set a limit on wealth. I say 1 million dollars a year maximum. No one ever earned more than that in my opinion. Talk to you soon Rich---  Jay

              •  It will... (0+ / 0-)

                be interesting to see where this all goes.

                You brought up Ayn Rand.  My question is....aren't we all philosophists?  

                +1

                "Being "bipolar" is not an excuse, fucko". - me

                by Sarge From Wackbag on Tue Jan 31, 2012 at 10:54:07 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  We ARE all philosophers (0+ / 0-)

                  The problem is that most people subscribe to the wrong philosophy. There is only one true philosophy and that is the one that best reflects human nature. Buddhism is as perfect a philosophy as I have come across. It doesn't  say much about economics but it does point the way toward a Unified Theory of Economics. That is where this is all headed. The only thing holding us back is conservatism, and that's not a knock on you (partly conservative) but rather on the ideology itself. The idea that "free market" capitalism will solve all of our problems is ridiculous and short-sighted. Our economy is a human creation and human nature mandates that we tinker with it until we work out all the problems. Proponents of the free market think that problems will solve themselves based on peoples' spending habits. In principle, this is the same as building a car without brakes, lights or windshield wipers and saying it's perfect the way it is ( I should come up with a better analogy I know) but you get the point. All throughout human history we have created things and improved upon them, our economy should be no different.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site