No.
You are owed some sort of safety net, IMO: no civilized nation (whether that refers to the people, the government, or both) should allow their citizens to go hungry or homeless.
No, I am not entitled to a job. I’m entitled to the chance to get one, which means that I should have as good a chance as, say, a man to get a job; however, I also need to be able to do the job in question. With respect to the government and companies who hire people for work, while I don’t think anyone is entitled to a job, I often feel that individuals with low or no incomes are often not afforded the same chances or opportunities to get work or the education that would help them get work as I am. I don’t know how to fix it; however, the amount of money that makes someone ineligible for government assistance programs is laughably low.
What we are owed, is that when someone asks a pollish question, they have to at least give their answer first.
No, we’re not owed anything. However it’s in the best interests of society for there to be some kind of net for people who are facing difficult circumstances through no fault of their own, and indeed to stop said people turning to other less legal avenues for money. You can’t live in a net forever though.
Agreed. However, I think the thrust of the argument is that if people are not allowed access to resources by society (for whatever reasons, no matter how good those reasons are) then society ‘owes’ them minimal food and shelter. Please note the word ‘minimal’.
As a practical matter, I agree it is beneficial to society to buy into the above argument for stability purposes. If a society has too many people with no legal method to obtain food and shelter then that society will become more unstable. Maybe even dangerously so and have a risk of descending into anarchy.
Right on Blinking! (gives secret socialist handshake)
Although I’m not really a socialist, and the question of whether the government has taken over our right to live off the land that we were born on is a very complex question, I like to throw it out every now and again. It’s worth mentioning.
Right, I see what you are saying. The thing is, “society” doesn’t choose to evolve the way it does. You can’t hold it accountable for its own natural progression, I don’t think. If we were living in our traditional hunter-gatherer society, there would still be societal rules regarding supporting oneself, I’m sure. In H-G society, we have to help with the hunt and collect our roots and berries. In our current society, we have to get a job. In both cases, there are safety nets (old people taken care of, people who can’t work for a good reason or who help by providing some other service are taken care of) but generally speaking, we all have some responsibility. The type of society we live in is irrelevant to that, I think…whichever one we live in, we have to live by the rules of that society, and understand that we are part of the makeup of that society…we owe it just as much as it owes us.
Agreed in all particulars.
I thought the question of “by whom?” would come up. For example, does DHL owe the residents of Ohio a job? Is DHL taking things away from people? Assuming “take” means you owned something to begin with.
I’m with Shibboleth.
No, we are not owed a job, an income, or really, anything at all. However, it is in our own and everyone else’s best interest that the opportunities are there. Otherwise, a large segment of our own society will throw over the laws and norms we live our lives by in order to get the chance to have what the rest of us already do.
It’s one thing if we’re all rich. It’s almost the same thing if we’re all poor, because at least we’re in the same boat together. But when there’s a large disparity of wealth and the opportunity to earn and make wealth . . . that’s a bad road to go down.
Well, it’s not secret how much of our lives depends on our jobs - including where we live. If one job in a town disappears, that unlucky soul can usually find another job in the same town. All they have to face is the transition of one employer for another.
But when the primary employer in a town lays off thousands of people with little to no warning? There are no other jobs to find in that town. Even the people not directly employed by the company face bankruptcy, as the rest of the population no longer has a paycheck to spend. So, people have to move to find another job, but how do they sell their house when the market is glutted with desperate sellers? Everything they’ve worked for - property, retirement, college funds, stability - evaporates in front of them. Is it any wonder they’re frantic?
Corporations do not live in a vacuum, though they’d like to pretend they do. Their decisions have an enormous effect on their employees, the employees’ families, the towns they’re centered in.
I want corporations to make a profit. That profit ensures that they can continue making their products and selling their services. Staying in business means they provide employment and benefits to individuals and pay taxes to the government. But our corporate culture’s emphasis on profit first, profit last, profit all the time no matter what the cost has done a great deal of damage to our society.
If it were up to me, I’d pass a law that says when a company lays off workers, the officers, board members, and stock holders must inform each individual and the individual’s family in person, explain why, and then deal with the reaction for at least 10 minutes. I wonder how easy it would be to lay off 8,000 then.
No. But I think that if a society makes having money a requirement for survival (and this one does, since everything costs money), then society should make it as easy as possible to make money. Or if it can’t ensure this, at least allow people to live without having to make money. If you’re penniless, there isn’t much you can do besides burdening someone else or breaking the law. Given this reality, then society does entitle us to some basics IMHO.
Agree.
Other than a lawyer (if you can’t afford one), you are not ***entitled ***to anything. Not a job, food, shelter, clothing… nothing.
The difference being that in a HG society, people can’t stop someone from going out and hunt/gather. Modern society does stop people from doing this. In a HG society, it would be extremely wasteful and foolish to try to stop someone from hunting and gathering. In modern society this is not necessarily true… You CAN have a potentially productive, willing citizen who is not allowed to be productive (have a job). It’s not any particular persons fault this is true…but overall, the idea that this can happen and the laws prevent a person from hunting/gathering without a job means the idea that minimal food/shelter should be provided.
As for evolving society…I have a hunch that a society that has a safety net will be more stable and tend to outcompete societies that do not. I imagine societies that do not have a safety net have a higher risk of dying out due to revolution, unrest etc.
Didn’t the Romans have some trouble with this? People were given rations of food for free but when the empire ran into trouble there was revolts because people ‘expected’ their free food?
I could be wrong about the Romans…but Sam brings up a point of danger. A society too free with giving out food/shelter could also run a risk of instability. (?)
Another vote for “strictly speaking, no- but…” The preamble to our constitution says that it’s purpose among other things is to “promote the general welfare”. Since the Great Depression, this has been held to mean “not allow large percentages of the population to be unemployed”. If nothing else, in a democracy even the unemployed can still vote; and rather than allow mobs of the poor to vote demagogues into office the preferred solution has been government alleviation of poverty.
Society doesn’t owe anyone a job, but it does owe everyone the chance at a job. If there are none, like during the Depression, society should find something productive for each person to do, whether it be pick up trash on the highways or do projects which aren’t cost effective for contractors to do. It is much better for each person to get something for contributing rather than to get something just for living.
If someone can’t do even these simple jobs, and there are no medical issues, then they should get minimal food, lodging and clothing to survive if not thrive.
I wonder what the “don’t owe anyone anything” group proposes to do for people who really can’t find a job. The soaring unemployment rate today seems to indicate that there is a problem, unless millions of Americans suddenly became lazy. Disruptions like we’re seeing are a natural result of our system, and I think they are actually healthy in redirecting labor to where it does the most good. But let’s realize that society prospers in the long run from these disruptions, and let’s not treat the people caught in them as bums.
For your consideration, this is what the UN’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights has to say about it “(1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.”
Some of you taking the hard line, is that really what you’d say to a disabled orphan? The millions of elderly living on Social Security? People with disabilities who work as they are able but don’t earn enough to save? IMHO, civilized society is more than you are making it out to be. Most people in their 20s, 30s, 40s can support themselves, and historically could do so by living off the land, but outside those decades and taking dependent children into consideration, society is much more of a team sport.
If you work for Wall Street, not only are you apparently owed a job and a big bonus, but your chosen business model is guaranteed to work, no matter how bad your judgment is, how much you steal, or how badly your screw ups hurt millions of other people. If you don’t work on Wall Street, you don’t even count enough to be able to see a doctor when you’re sick.
My Og! You’re not entitled to anything but a lawyer? I can live with the statement that no one is entitled to anything, but that the one thing you are entitled to is a lawyer?
Let me help you refine that position - “Everyone is entitled to kick a lawyer in the nuts/ovaries, at least once in their lives”.
IAAL