|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Apr 29, 2014 11:12:37 GMT
Should an Inalienable Right of the Person (e.g. the Right of Liberty) be violated for economic gain by another person?
I really do not know what you mean by the question with which you have ended your rebuttal. (If you mean, Is it okay to hire illegals "for economic gain," while knowing that they are in the US illegally--hire them in any capacity--I would answer with a resounding no. In fact, I believe that employers who hire illegals should have their respective businesses closed down for several weeks for an initial violation; and closed down permanently for any subsequent violation within a period of, oh, say, five years.) You have tap danced around the fundamental question, viz.: Why should it be considered a law of nature that the Mexican economy must be vastly inferior to the American economy? (The Canadian economy--and Canada, also, is contiguous to the US--appears to function pretty well.)
I can't think of any "natural laws" related to economic exchange. In nature the interactions are based upon the "Law of the Jungle" which is what the arguments for the Inalienable Rights of the Person or "natural law" as defined by John Locke argue against. Nature is based upon conflict and acts of aggression while "natural law" as argued for by John Locke was to provide for a society that eliminated the conflict in nature.
As for the question I left you with the "Inalienable Rights of the Person" are not statutory so the question exists outside of considerations for statutory law. In short there are no "illegal aliens" related to the question as there would be no laws to address in the question. The question relates solely to the violation of the Rights of one person by another for personal gain.
For example:
Is it acceptable for someone to steal from another person for personal gain?
Is it acceptable for one person to forceably take property that they don't own for personal gain?
Is it acceptable for one group of people to prevent another group of people from working for a living?
Now let's put two and two together.
In nature, based upon the law of the jungle, animals stake out territory and by force they prevent other similiar animals from using that territory for survival. A wolf pack, for example, marks it's territory and then will fight with any other wolves that attempt to use that territory for survival. It is just this type of behavior that John Locke argued against citing that (paraphrased) that "all wolves had the same right of survival" in the wild.
When we pass immigration laws that prohibit a "Person" from working in the United States then we are violating their "natural right to survival" just like the wolf pack that denies the lone wolf the ability to roam the same territory for the purpose of survival. It is for this reason that the founders of America believed that a "person" had an Inalienable Right to immigrate across international borders that are artificial in nature. A person has an Inalienable Right of Liberty to go where they choose for the purpose of survival. Our immigration laws that prohibit immigration for peaceful purposes are a violation of the Right of Liberty of a Person for "our" personal economic gain (even though studies show that we actually lose economically by prohibiting the immigration).
|
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Apr 29, 2014 15:51:03 GMT
I really do not know what you mean by the question with which you have ended your rebuttal. (If you mean, Is it okay to hire illegals "for economic gain," while knowing that they are in the US illegally--hire them in any capacity--I would answer with a resounding no. In fact, I believe that employers who hire illegals should have their respective businesses closed down for several weeks for an initial violation; and closed down permanently for any subsequent violation within a period of, oh, say, five years.) You have tap danced around the fundamental question, viz.: Why should it be considered a law of nature that the Mexican economy must be vastly inferior to the American economy? (The Canadian economy--and Canada, also, is contiguous to the US--appears to function pretty well.)
I can't think of any "natural laws" related to economic exchange. In nature the interactions are based upon the "Law of the Jungle" which is what the arguments for the Inalienable Rights of the Person or "natural law" as defined by John Locke argue against. Nature is based upon conflict and acts of aggression while "natural law" as argued for by John Locke was to provide for a society that eliminated the conflict in nature.
As for the question I left you with the "Inalienable Rights of the Person" are not statutory so the question exists outside of considerations for statutory law. In short there are no "illegal aliens" related to the question as there would be no laws to address in the question. The question relates solely to the violation of the Rights of one person by another for personal gain.
For example:
Is it acceptable for someone to steal from another person for personal gain?
Is it acceptable for one person to forceably take property that they don't own for personal gain?
Is it acceptable for one group of people to prevent another group of people from working for a living?
Now let's put two and two together.
In nature, based upon the law of the jungle, animals stake out territory and by force they prevent other similiar animals from using that territory for survival. A wolf pack, for example, marks it's territory and then will fight with any other wolves that attempt to use that territory for survival. It is just this type of behavior that John Locke argued against citing that (paraphrased) that "all wolves had the same right of survival" in the wild.
When we pass immigration laws that prohibit a "Person" from working in the United States then we are violating their "natural right to survival" just like the wolf pack that denies the lone wolf the ability to roam the same territory for the purpose of survival. It is for this reason that the founders of America believed that a "person" had an Inalienable Right to immigrate across international borders that are artificial in nature. A person has an Inalienable Right of Liberty to go where they choose for the purpose of survival. Our immigration laws that prohibit immigration for peaceful purposes are a violation of the Right of Liberty of a Person for "our" personal economic gain (even though studies show that we actually lose economically by prohibiting the immigration).
First, I do not think that immigration laws are rooted in a desire for "economic gain," but in a desire to assert our national sovereignty. (But your characterization of all national boundaries as "artificial" suggests that you do not accept the fundamental principle of national sovereignty.) And why should immigration from Mexico to the US be a matter of "survival"? Your premise appears to assume that it is a law of nature that Mexico must be an economic basket case, when compared with the US. And why should that be the case? |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Apr 30, 2014 12:25:18 GMT
First, I do not think that immigration laws are rooted in a desire for "economic gain," but in a desire to assert our national sovereignty. (But your characterization of all national boundaries as "artificial" suggests that you do not accept the fundamental principle of national sovereignty.) And why should immigration from Mexico to the US be a matter of "survival"? Your premise appears to assume that it is a law of nature that Mexico must be an economic basket case, when compared with the US. And why should that be the case?
In a very real sense you are correct. I believe in the "Inalienable Right of Sovereignty of the Person" and "national sovereignty" is nothing more than the reflection of the individual sovereignty of those living within a territorial boundry (borders of a nation). As with any Inalienable Right it cannot violate the Inalienable Rights of another Person. In short while we, as individuals, have "sovereignty" we have no authority to violate the "sovereignty" of another person.
As for "survival" it is not a case of national borders. Let me provide this in simple terms. In modern society a person must work to provide the necessities of life as surviving off of the land is effectively eliminated by the "private ownership of land and natural resources" under the law (which is what I argue against in this thread). Life and death are directly related to the ability of the person to work for a living.
"No Work = Death" "Work = Life"
Political boundries have nothing to do with whether a person can work for a living and survive or if they can't work for a living and not survive. If there isn't a job in Mexico city but there is in El Paso then it doesn't really matter if there happens to be an artificial political border between the two. National borders are an artifical construct that you will not find on a photograph of the planet. They are "unnatural" and unrelated to the "Natural" Inalienable Rights of the Person.
Of course we have the "middle of the road" where work that doesn't fully fund the necessities of life is just the condemnation of the person to a "slow death" over time unless they receive welfare assistance either private or public.
|
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Apr 30, 2014 20:19:27 GMT
First, I do not think that immigration laws are rooted in a desire for "economic gain," but in a desire to assert our national sovereignty. (But your characterization of all national boundaries as "artificial" suggests that you do not accept the fundamental principle of national sovereignty.) And why should immigration from Mexico to the US be a matter of "survival"? Your premise appears to assume that it is a law of nature that Mexico must be an economic basket case, when compared with the US. And why should that be the case?
In a very real sense you are correct. I believe in the "Inalienable Right of Sovereignty of the Person" and "national sovereignty" is nothing more than the reflection of the individual sovereignty of those living within a territorial boundry (borders of a nation). As with any Inalienable Right it cannot violate the Inalienable Rights of another Person. In short while we, as individuals, have "sovereignty" we have no authority to violate the "sovereignty" of another person.
As for "survival" it is not a case of national borders. Let me provide this in simple terms. In modern society a person must work to provide the necessities of life as surviving off of the land is effectively eliminated by the "private ownership of land and natural resources" under the law (which is what I argue against in this thread). Life and death are directly related to the ability of the person to work for a living.
"No Work = Death" "Work = Life"
Political boundries have nothing to do with whether a person can work for a living and survive or if they can't work for a living and not survive. If there isn't a job in Mexico city but there is in El Paso then it doesn't really matter if there happens to be an artificial political border between the two. National borders are an artifical construct that you will not find on a photograph of the planet. They are "unnatural" and unrelated to the "Natural" Inalienable Rights of the Person.
Of course we have the "middle of the road" where work that doesn't fully fund the necessities of life is just the condemnation of the person to a "slow death" over time unless they receive welfare assistance either private or public.
I suppose that it may be asserted (reasonably enough) that national borders are "an artificial construct," since such borders will not be found on any "photograph of the planet." But does it necessarily derive from this premise, in your opinion, that individual nations are anachronistic--even downright illegitimate--and that a one-world concept would be superior? And again--predictably enough, I suppose--you declined to address the question of why there may be work in the US, but not in Mexico.
|
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on May 1, 2014 0:57:40 GMT
I suppose that it may be asserted (reasonably enough) that national borders are "an artificial construct," since such borders will not be found on any "photograph of the planet." But does it necessarily derive from this premise, in your opinion, that individual nations are anachronistic--even downright illegitimate--and that a one-world concept would be superior? And again--predictably enough, I suppose--you declined to address the question of why there may be work in the US, but not in Mexico.
I do not contend that individual narions are anachronistic or illegitimate nor do I advocate a one-world government. Many would choose to come to America because of our political ideology that advocates the protection of the Inalienable Rights of the Person by government and not for economic reasons. They may choose to come here because of the relative lack of corruption of our government when the government of their native country is corrupt. Or they may come here for economic reasons. Even ignoring the fact that they have an Inalienable Right of Expatriation (immigration) all of these are reasons to welcome them as every one of these immigrants benefits our nation.
Always remember that the immigrant creates more jobs than they fill and that they pay more in taxes than they consume in benefits.
There can be a multitude of reasons why there are more jobs in the United States when compared to Mexico. Geography being one (i.e. more deserts), government corruption, the effects of the War on Drugs creating drug cartels, a shortage of water, etc. can all be reasons. The fact is IT DOESN'T MATTER when we address the Inalienable Rights of the Person.
|
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on May 1, 2014 16:34:20 GMT
I suppose that it may be asserted (reasonably enough) that national borders are "an artificial construct," since such borders will not be found on any "photograph of the planet." But does it necessarily derive from this premise, in your opinion, that individual nations are anachronistic--even downright illegitimate--and that a one-world concept would be superior? And again--predictably enough, I suppose--you declined to address the question of why there may be work in the US, but not in Mexico.
I do not contend that individual narions are anachronistic or illegitimate nor do I advocate a one-world government. Many would choose to come to America because of our political ideology that advocates the protection of the Inalienable Rights of the Person by government and not for economic reasons. They may choose to come here because of the relative lack of corruption of our government when the government of their native country is corrupt. Or they may come here for economic reasons. Even ignoring the fact that they have an Inalienable Right of Expatriation (immigration) all of these are reasons to welcome them as every one of these immigrants benefits our nation.
Always remember that the immigrant creates more jobs than they fill and that they pay more in taxes than they consume in benefits.
There can be a multitude of reasons why there are more jobs in the United States when compared to Mexico. Geography being one (i.e. more deserts), government corruption, the effects of the War on Drugs creating drug cartels, a shortage of water, etc. can all be reasons. The fact is IT DOESN'T MATTER when we address the Inalienable Rights of the Person.
Since you have disavowed any preference for a one-world government, it begs the question: Why would you not wish for nation-states to enforce their own borders? (To put it another way: Would you allow strangers to come into your house, uninvited, and without bothering to do so much as knock on the door first? If not, then why should our nation--it is our nation--allow others to come into our home--the United States-- uninvited?) Mexico's lethargic economy long antedates the large drug cartels and the War on Drugs. There is no inherent reason (that I can see) why Mexico's government should be any more corrupt than our own government is. If it is more corrupt, why can that not be changed? And I am still trying to imagine why water shortages in Mexico should result in more jobs in the US. By the way, it really does matter. I simply do not accept the premise that the US must forever serve as a magnet to Mexicans, in a way that Mexico does not serve as a magnet to Americans. |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on May 2, 2014 14:01:50 GMT
Since you have disavowed any preference for a one-world government, it begs the question: Why would you not wish for nation-states to enforce their own borders? (To put it another way: Would you allow strangers to come into your house, uninvited, and without bothering to do so much as knock on the door first? If not, then why should our nation--it is our nation--allow others to come into our home--the United States-- uninvited?)
As this thread argues we don't actually "own the land or natural resources" based upon our Inalienable Rights but there is a pragmatic reason for limited authorizations specific to individuals to use the land and natural resources where it benefits ALL people. We don't "OWN" the United States but instead we share it with others that all have the same Inalienable Rights that we have.
We have established a "government" to govern the People within a geographical area but no government can govern dirt, plants or wildlife. A tomato can't break the law. Our laws relate to controling the actions of the People that would violate the Rights of other People.
I have not advocated completely unrestricted borders nor would any logical person. As the founders like Thomas Jefferson pointed out we should prohibit those from entering our territorial borders that would come here for nefarious purposes that would violate out Inalienable Rights.
The immigrant that comes to the United States for peaceful purposes does not infringe upon any of our Inalienable Rights. They are not using any force or coercion against us and represent no threat against us individual or as nation. In fact studies indicate that they are highly beneficial to us because they pay more in taxes than they use in benefits and they create more jobs than they fill.
What valid argument can be used against the immigrant that comes here for peaceful purposed such as working? Even low paid seasonal immigrants create 1.8 jobs for every job they fill and they pay more in taxes than they use in benefits according to a 2007 study conducted by the Bush Adminstration. The peaceful immigrant takes nothing from us, gives us more than we would have without them, and does not violate any of our Inalienable Rights.
|
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on May 2, 2014 19:43:04 GMT
Since you have disavowed any preference for a one-world government, it begs the question: Why would you not wish for nation-states to enforce their own borders? (To put it another way: Would you allow strangers to come into your house, uninvited, and without bothering to do so much as knock on the door first? If not, then why should our nation--it is our nation--allow others to come into our home--the United States-- uninvited?)
As this thread argues we don't actually "own the land or natural resources" based upon our Inalienable Rights but there is a pragmatic reason for limited authorizations specific to individuals to use the land and natural resources where it benefits ALL people. We don't "OWN" the United States but instead we share it with others that all have the same Inalienable Rights that we have.
We have established a "government" to govern the People within a geographical area but no government can govern dirt, plants or wildlife. A tomato can't break the law. Our laws relate to controling the actions of the People that would violate the Rights of other People.
I have not advocated completely unrestricted borders nor would any logical person. As the founders like Thomas Jefferson pointed out we should prohibit those from entering our territorial borders that would come here for nefarious purposes that would violate out Inalienable Rights.
The immigrant that comes to the United States for peaceful purposes does not infringe upon any of our Inalienable Rights. They are not using any force or coercion against us and represent no threat against us individual or as nation. In fact studies indicate that they are highly beneficial to us because they pay more in taxes than they use in benefits and they create more jobs than they fill.
What valid argument can be used against the immigrant that comes here for peaceful purposed such as working? Even low paid seasonal immigrants create 1.8 jobs for every job they fill and they pay more in taxes than they use in benefits according to a 2007 study conducted by the Bush Adminstration. The peaceful immigrant takes nothing from us, gives us more than we would have without them, and does not violate any of our Inalienable Rights.
Your continually disavowing any support for those who would come to the US "for nefarious purposes" is becoming rather threadbare. It appears to represent an attempt, on your part, to claim some sort of middle ground. But the fact is that just about everyone (with the possible exception of al-Qaeda types and other America haters) would agree with you on this point. So it is really not any "middle ground." Whether individual Americans may "own" a plot of land or not is really not central to the argument at hand , viz.: America (the country) belongs to Americans, just as Italy (the country) belongs to Italians, and Sweden (the country) belongs to Swedes. There is simply no such thing as amorphous "citizens of the world," as far as I can see. |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on May 3, 2014 11:32:31 GMT
Your continually disavowing any support for those who would come to the US "for nefarious purposes" is becoming rather threadbare. It appears to represent an attempt, on your part, to claim some sort of middle ground. But the fact is that just about everyone (with the possible exception of al-Qaeda types and other America haters) would agree with you on this point. So it is really not any "middle ground." Whether individual Americans may "own" a plot of land or not is really not central to the argument at hand , viz.: America (the country) belongs to Americans, just as Italy (the country) belongs to Italians, and Sweden (the country) belongs to Swedes. There is simply no such thing as amorphous "citizens of the world," as far as I can see.
The Inalienable Rights of the Person are not restrained by political boundries that are artificial constructs created by People. While People can establish "political boundries" they do not have a Right to violate the Inalienable Rights of Another Person.
The Right of Liberty of a Person to go where they please, so long as it is not with the intent to violate the Rights of another Person, cannot be denied to anyone.
Here is the question that you must answer:
Does an immigrant coming to the United States for peaceful purposes (such as employment) violate or even threaten anyone's Inalienable Rights as a Person?
This is very similar to the arguments related to same-sex marriage. A same-sex couple being allowed to marry doesn't violate anyone else's right to marry. Same-sex marriage does not infringe upon the Rights of an opposite-sex couple in any manner whatsoever.
(Answer to the above question: Allowing a person to immigrate to the United States for peaceful purposes does not infringe upon the Rights of any Person living in the United States.)
|
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on May 3, 2014 19:53:59 GMT
Your continually disavowing any support for those who would come to the US "for nefarious purposes" is becoming rather threadbare. It appears to represent an attempt, on your part, to claim some sort of middle ground. But the fact is that just about everyone (with the possible exception of al-Qaeda types and other America haters) would agree with you on this point. So it is really not any "middle ground." Whether individual Americans may "own" a plot of land or not is really not central to the argument at hand , viz.: America (the country) belongs to Americans, just as Italy (the country) belongs to Italians, and Sweden (the country) belongs to Swedes. There is simply no such thing as amorphous "citizens of the world," as far as I can see.
The Inalienable Rights of the Person are not restrained by political boundries that are artificial constructs created by People. While People can establish "political boundries" they do not have a Right to violate the Inalienable Rights of Another Person.
The Right of Liberty of a Person to go where they please, so long as it is not with the intent to violate the Rights of another Person, cannot be denied to anyone.
Here is the question that you must answer:
Does an immigrant coming to the United States for peaceful purposes (such as employment) violate or even threaten anyone's Inalienable Rights as a Person?
This is very similar to the arguments related to same-sex marriage. A same-sex couple being allowed to marry doesn't violate anyone else's right to marry. Same-sex marriage does not infringe upon the Rights of an opposite-sex couple in any manner whatsoever.
(Answer to the above question: Allowing a person to immigrate to the United States for peaceful purposes does not infringe upon the Rights of any Person living in the United States.)
Considering (1) the nature of the postmodern welfare state; and (2) the inability of America to absorb an unlimited number of immigrants, without its having a serious impact upon our rate of unemployment; I would argue that open borders is a concept that, in the real world, would present a major problem--irrespective of how beautiful it might be in pure theory. |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on May 4, 2014 11:01:10 GMT
Considering (1) the nature of the postmodern welfare state; and (2) the inability of America to absorb an unlimited number of immigrants, without its having a serious impact upon our rate of unemployment; I would argue that open borders is a concept that, in the real world, would present a major problem--irrespective of how beautiful it might be in pure theory.
Immigration results in more net employment for the nation and immigrants pay more in taxes than they receive in benefits.
news.yahoo.com/open-immigration-could-double-global-economy-162100675.html
This isn't "theory" but instead it's documented fact.
Of note H1-B immigrants are low paid seasonal workers often in agricultural (i.e. migrant pickers) and hundreds of billions of dollars in food isn't being havested annually because we need about a 50% increase in the number allowed into the country. In WA about 1/3rd of the apple crop is not being harvested annually because of a lack of migrant labor. Because those "apples" aren't being harvested millions of higher paying US jobs are lost such as trucking and handling jobs typically filled by US workers. Because the "migrant" workers aren't being allowed in the country we're losing tens of billions of dollars in taxation and the jobs necessary to provide food and housing for the migrant workers are lost.
The political propaganda machine has managed to convince people that the US "suffers" from immigration when in fact the US economy benefits because they create higher paying US jobs than they fill and they pay more in taxes than they use in benefits. What we're actually suffering from is a shortage of immigration in the United States because we effectively block (Hispanic) immigration.
|
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on May 4, 2014 20:08:59 GMT
Considering (1) the nature of the postmodern welfare state; and (2) the inability of America to absorb an unlimited number of immigrants, without its having a serious impact upon our rate of unemployment; I would argue that open borders is a concept that, in the real world, would present a major problem--irrespective of how beautiful it might be in pure theory.
Immigration results in more net employment for the nation and immigrants pay more in taxes than they receive in benefits.
news.yahoo.com/open-immigration-could-double-global-economy-162100675.html
This isn't "theory" but instead it's documented fact.
Of note H1-B immigrants are low paid seasonal workers often in agricultural (i.e. migrant pickers) and hundreds of billions of dollars in food isn't being havested annually because we need about a 50% increase in the number allowed into the country. In WA about 1/3rd of the apple crop is not being harvested annually because of a lack of migrant labor. Because those "apples" aren't being harvested millions of higher paying US jobs are lost such as trucking and handling jobs typically filled by US workers. Because the "migrant" workers aren't being allowed in the country we're losing tens of billions of dollars in taxation and the jobs necessary to provide food and housing for the migrant workers are lost.
The political propaganda machine has managed to convince people that the US "suffers" from immigration when in fact the US economy benefits because they create higher paying US jobs than they fill and they pay more in taxes than they use in benefits. What we're actually suffering from is a shortage of immigration in the United States because we effectively block (Hispanic) immigration.
How is it, exactly, that more jobs are being created by illegals that would not have been created if those same jobs were filled, instead, by American workers?
And how is it that more is paid in taxes by illegals than would have been paid in taxes if those same jobs had been filled by American workers? |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on May 5, 2014 12:48:09 GMT
How is it, exactly, that more jobs are being created by illegals that would not have been created if those same jobs were filled, instead, by American workers?
And how is it that more is paid in taxes by illegals than would have been paid in taxes if those same jobs had been filled by American workers?
Are you an advocate of "forced labor" because that's the only way your going to get Americans to fill the jobs most immigrants fill.
We had 18 million unemployed and about 1/3rd of the apple crop was not harvested in WA because Americans won't voluntarily pick apples. This can't even be blamed on "Low Wages" because the apple pickers are paid "piece work" and can earn very good incomes based upon hard work. The problem is that "Americans" typically won't work in hard labor jobs like apple picking voluntarily so you'd have to force them to harvest apples.
Should the US government force America's unemployed to pick apples?
Last year I read that new construction permits were up but new housing construction starts couldn't keep up because of a lack of labor. Americans that had been in housing construction had found new employment after the housing crash and about 1 million Mexicans that has been involved in construction returned to Mexico because of a lack of work. The Americans formerly involved in construction will not go back to home construction industry and the Mexicans that left now face the quotas system and can't get back into the US so about 10% of actual construction jobs had to be put on hold due to a lack of labor.
Should the US government force America's unemployed to build houses?
|
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on May 5, 2014 23:35:52 GMT
How is it, exactly, that more jobs are being created by illegals that would not have been created if those same jobs were filled, instead, by American workers?
And how is it that more is paid in taxes by illegals than would have been paid in taxes if those same jobs had been filled by American workers?
Are you an advocate of "forced labor" because that's the only way your going to get Americans to fill the jobs most immigrants fill.
We had 18 million unemployed and about 1/3rd of the apple crop was not harvested in WA because Americans won't voluntarily pick apples. This can't even be blamed on "Low Wages" because the apple pickers are paid "piece work" and can earn very good incomes based upon hard work. The problem is that "Americans" typically won't work in hard labor jobs like apple picking voluntarily so you'd have to force them to harvest apples.
Should the US government force America's unemployed to pick apples?
Last year I read that new construction permits were up but new housing construction starts couldn't keep up because of a lack of labor. Americans that had been in housing construction had found new employment after the housing crash and about 1 million Mexicans that has been involved in construction returned to Mexico because of a lack of work. The Americans formerly involved in construction will not go back to home construction industry and the Mexicans that left now face the quotas system and can't get back into the US so about 10% of actual construction jobs had to be put on hold due to a lack of labor.
Should the US government force America's unemployed to build houses?
Whereas I certainly do not believe that the federal government (or state or local government, for that matter) should "force" Americans to perform any sort of work, I do believe it should make the ability to receive unemployment compensation entirely dependent upon one's willingness to perform any sort of work that one is physically and mentally capable of doing. |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on May 6, 2014 13:37:24 GMT
Whereas I certainly do not believe that the federal government (or state or local government, for that matter) should "force" Americans to perform any sort of work, I do believe it should make the ability to receive unemployment compensation entirely dependent upon one's willingness to perform any sort of work that one is physically and mentally capable of doing.
All you're stating is that the government should use economic force (i.e. the threat of termination of unemployment benefits) to require a person to work at a minimum wage job.
We should note that in my state (WA) the unemployment insurance is directly tied to the industry and job which establishes the rates that the employer pays. So a "mechanical engineer" that is laid off from Boeing has his unemployment benefits tied to his job of being an aerospace mechanical engineer because that is what Boeing paid for with it's unemployment insurance payment.
Unemployment benefits, at the state level, are not "publically" funded but instead are privately funded by enterprise and managed by the State. There are no "taxes" being paid to fund the insurance and instead it's based upon an "insurance premium" paid for by the employers.
|
|
