Do some people really believe that they have a "right to a job"?

lol wtf are you talking about?

 

That's the message that I was trying to get across to people with this post, but I fear I am mostly preaching to the choir. Some people seem to believe that the fact that they were born in a wealthy country automatically entitles them to the wealth the country has. I was hoping that laying out a rational argument for them, it would at least force them to consider another point of view, but many of them are just arrogant about their views, and unwilling to listen to anything or anyone that doesn't agree with them. In their defense though (as I was once one of those people), it is hard to accept complete responsibility for your life and everything in it. I hope that someday the liberals (and conservatives too...but their growing up is in regards to tolerance and science, not responsibility) grow up, stop complaining about their situation, and live their life.

While your last paragraph is completely accurate in that MOST CEO's work very hard and deserve what they get, it is also important to mention that there have been several bad CEO's that should be in prison for the corrupt cronyism that they were involved in (e.g. Anthony Mozillo).

 

The same gang of nutters who force people to live in slums and then lock them up for taking drugs also tend to rant about 'life', forcing women to bear children they can't offer anything to , just, apparently, to keep up the biggest prison population any country ever had in history. I am talking about grotesque hypocritical ranters. If you force people to live, provide for 'em!

 

WHo forces people to live in slums? Project housing supporters?

 

I actually have quite a bit of education in math and economics. The thing is, I do not take an ideological perspective but a logical reasoned one. On the matter of right to work, many of the hysterical objections here have been from the perspective that employers will be forced to hire any imbecile that walks through their door. An unreasonable assumption, and one that makes very plain that they have applied very little actual thought to the concept but are reacting in an emotionally driven manner based on ideological perspectives.

There are many economic models, including ones that conjecture that a right to work will lead to increases in economic inefficiencies. As with all economic models and the theories that drive them, it is based on faulty assumptions, supported by incomplete data, and forwarded by delusions of fantasy that have little to not actual relationship to how economies, and the societies they serve, actually function.

What is the point of having an economy if it does not serve society?
In a society where employment is the key factor for individual survival only an economic model that assumes that society exists only to serve the economy, and that people are just disposable assets, would assert that there is no right to work.

Personally I have never had a problem with gaining employment but that does not lead me to conclude that everyone else is just like me. I have seen how discrimination and the arbitrary nature of circumstance that has had drastic effect on others attempts at survival in our world. I consider myself extremely lucky and am not so deluded as to think that everyone else can be as fortunate as me if they would just exert a little more effort.

Mathematics is based on axioms that hold true through all circumtances. The axioms of human behaviour that form the basis of Hayek's reasoning are false, long ago dis-proven discredited and abandoned by those who make a study of such things. I recommend that you read up on advances in the study of human behaviour that have occurred since the time of Darwin.

For a sound foundation in reasoning and logic I suggest for you one very small undergraduate text that served me well so many years ago in broadening my understanding of logic reasoning and mathematics beyond simple problem solving:
Elementary Analysis; The Theory of Calculus
by Kenneth A. Ross
ISBN 0-387-90459-X

 

Hayek came after Darwin. The two have no logical conclusion.

 

What axiom is wrong?

 

Being forced to hire them isn't the problem. It's being forced to keep them on, even after it's come to light the person is unfit for what they're employed to do. That doesn't mean they're an "imbecile", it could be that their schedule doesn't line up for them to be there consistently, or that they lack certain training to accomplish the job.

Everyone acts upon ideology, the only difference is between those who do it by intent, and those who do it without intent. You would appear to be applying some variant of positivism.

You do not have a right to work, because you do not work just to work. Jobs are a means, not an end in of themselves. Rather, you work to put food on your plate, and to justify that, your job, and yourself in that job, must create value.

And has limits, so found Godel.

Economics is not a science that conforms to mechanical use of deterministic formulas. Heck, we can't even rightfully call it a science, it's of the humanities, and there it belongs.

 

?!? The "economy' isn't something "created" to serve society, it is the result of billions of decisions made by people on what to do with their money.

What economic model results in a robust economy?

Eliminate the minimum wage, and the health care mandates (my family insurance cost my company $15K a year, $7.5 an hour), and employment will increase substantially.

What is unspoken in your "right to work" is the right to a "living wage". Does the employer get the "right" to productivity that pays that living wage? If not, where does the money come from? Does the consumer have the "right" to a reasonable price? If not, then the "living wage" is moving target, that ends in hyper inflation.

 

Who is forcing people to live? Who is forcing women to bear children? Who is forcing people to live in the slums? Who is this supposed gang of nutters?

A good number of the slums are the projects created to provide for them - that isn't working very well.

 

Capitalists, obviously. You suppose they pay people what they are worth, do you? American!

 

What big company can raise wages even 20% and stay profitable? Who decides how much labor is worth? You, or the person paying for it?

 

Don't you know? Grovelling, racist, fundamentalist spite-merchants such as those who vote Republican. And only God destroys the climate too! Alleluia!

- - - Updated - - -

Why do you NEED big companies to rob you? Masochist, are you?

 

Only government takes their money from me at gun point. I drive to go to big companies and shop there. It is different. I also in my small business thanks to big companies. How else would I produce boxes and ship all over the US?

Couldn't find an example huh? Well you should still act out over it.

 

Claiming that one has the "right to a job" implies that one has a right to the property of others. One cannot support the notion of a right to a job while also supporting the concept of property rights. As they are incompatible, one has to be chosen at the expense of the other. I choose respect for property rights (both in one's body and in acquired property).

 

The capitalist have you so brainwashed that they take most of what you earn from you to smiles. America, America, what may we think of thee!

 

If by take you mean clamor for my business where I can choose whatever products i want to buy and who to buy it from then I guess they take some. The government takes a lot too. I don't get much for that though, and I definitely have no choice in the matter. If they don't get paid they will imprison me.

 

Capitalists take? I don't think so. A capitalist only receives what people voluntarily choose to give. The government (and other criminals), on the other hand, takes what it wants by force.

 

Brainwashed? In what world is this car, produced by capitalism, worse than this Socialist piece of crap? One I have to shake like a drink in order to mix the fuel?

 

The value of a commodity is the socially necessary labour time put into producing it - i.e. the work working people put in. The capitalist, who produces nothing whatever, sells it at that price and steals a large proportion, some of which he uses to brainwash the mugs, as of course you are not allowed to know.

- - - Updated - - -

Brainwashed in that most Americans have not the slightest idea of what they are talking about and react, always, like a drunken football fans looking for a punchup.

 

The value to whom?

If the capitalist doesn't produce anything, what exactly is it that you claim he is selling?

 

Comrade, who will decide prices in your new world? Will you be among the elite making decisions for the rat of us, or will you join us as worker bees producing and getting paid by what the deciders ordain fair? May I be a philosopher in your world while you build my house? I want to ponder the existence of your labor and decide if it is real or just a perception by me.

 

What other people make and he steals, obviously.

 

What on earth are you on about?

 

If we get rid of capitalism, and we live in your worker paradise, who decides how much services cost? Do I get to eat steak and veal, or do I get stuck with chicken?