People Should Be Compelled To Work For Free

[Winchester]

I've seen this opinion from many people, although they usually don't formulate it so bluntly. These people usually equate the word 'right' with the word 'entitled,' and they usually feel that others should provide services to all regardless of the person's ability to pay. I've noticed that most of these people do not provide the service which they believe should be provided even for free.

I believe it's virtuous of people to volunteer, but that they should not be compelled by government power to do so.

[MichaelFilo]

No you don't believe it.

[Winchester]

Yes I do.

[MichaelFilo]

Does everyone have a right to a lawyer?

[Winchester]

[quote name='MichaelFilo' timestamp='1288894058' post='2184770']
Does everyone have a right to a lawyer?
[/quote]
In criminal court, they are told they have a right to one, when the proper word would be "entitled" (by law). Because our judicial system is overly complicated and not based upon justice, one practically needs a lawyer. Lawyers are permitted to pursue deceptive lines of questioning and are permitted to prevent those questioned from presenting the whole truth. This makes questioning a game of intellect rather than an attempt to pursue the truth.

And court appointed lawyers are not compelled to work for free.


In reality, the obligation is for the courts to provide justice. It is easier to provide lawyers than to keep the justice system manageable. The state currently uses this approach with taxes, as well.

[MichaelFilo]

Lawyers must do some amount of pro-bono work. Those ones do the free work, I am told. The State Governments run the Bar associations, so, you would expect a laywer to work for free.

Your income tax represents the percentage of time you worked for free because the state takes the fruit of your labor automatically. That doesn't bother you does it?

Edited November 4, 2010 by MichaelFilo

[dairygirl4u2c]

it seems like winchester has before said things like 'people have a right to access of the earth, in a hypothetical society where such access might be questioned'. was he talking about merely one's right to potentially get there, or talking about how it's a fundamental right that if they can't get to that basic need met through no fault of their own, they have more than just a potential?

for example. there's an apple on the ground. bob needs an apple or he will die. everyone else is apple farmers and happy. bob has no land and no apples so it's not his. he can't find any work to get the apple, or any other means, through no fault of his own. must bob now die? he has the 'right' the ability to get the apple even if it means that in practice he can't and he'd die, but he's not entitled to a means of getting the apple if it's through no fault of his own?

if all he's saying is 'a fat welfare queen shouldn't get hand outs as an 'entitlement'' i dont think too many would disagree.

Edited November 4, 2010 by dairygirl4u2c

[Winchester]

[quote name='MichaelFilo' timestamp='1288895168' post='2184781']
Lawyers must do some amount of pro-bono work. Those ones do the free work, I am told. The State Governments run the Bar associations, so, you would expect a laywer to work for free.[/quote]
I don't believe people should be compelled to work for free. This includes lawyers, who are [s]probably [/s] possibly people.

I think there could be justification insofar as one might see the requirement to work some cases free as a sort of fee for licensing by the state. In this case, one would not be working for free, but for the privilege of working in state courts. Whether the agreement would be just is another matter.


[quote]Your income tax represents the percentage of time you worked for free because the state takes the fruit of your labor automatically. That doesn't bother you does it?
[/quote]
I get roads, men who kill other men, politicians who lie to me and various other things from those taxes. So I am not working for free. I do believe income tax is ridiculous, however. I would prefer sales tax, which could be structured so as to encourage thrift.

[dairygirl4u2c]

"Now if the earth truly was created to provide man with the necessities of life and the tools for his own progress, it follows that every man has the right to glean what he needs from the earth."
said by a pope.

it doesn't sound like this guy is saying that the person is only entitled to a 'right of possibiilty' but to a 'right of actual resource'.

[dairygirl4u2c]

maybe im getting too off tangent from the topic at hand with the above stuff.

it does relate somewhat though. if a person is on welfare, many say that that person should be force to work. should we say that they should not?
they are 'entitled' to the resource, and why should we make them work if htey weren't able to get that resource on their own? just give it to them. it could be said.

forced labor is unconstitutional as a general principle, indentured servitude or something.
could be applied to welfare, lawyers, all kinds of situations.

[dairygirl4u2c]

one might take the idea 'we can't force a person to work' and say 'if we have even a slight distributionism system, we're effectively forcing the tax payers to work for those being serviced' and say the whole system is flawed from that perspective 'forced labor' regardless of the other merits or not of that system.

[dairygirl4u2c]

"I would prefer sales tax, which could be structured so as to encourage thrift. "

it might also encourage lack of creating stuff, manufacturing. less jobs then.
it'd definitely got the advantage of not taxing peole just cause they work, exist effectively, though.

[Winchester]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' timestamp='1288896289' post='2184801']
"I would prefer sales tax, which could be structured so as to encourage thrift. "

it might also encourage lack of creating stuff, manufacturing. less jobs then.
it'd definitely got the advantage of not taxing peole just cause they work, exist effectively, though.
[/quote]
It also negates one the the strongest arguments against illegal immigration, makes it simpler to work and allows people to save on taxes by avoiding luxuries.

It doesn't discourage business. People need money and they will work. So long as people do not give them free money.

[CatherineM]

I got no problem forcing people to volunteer, as long as it's not for suicide missions.

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='CatherineM' timestamp='1288899011' post='2184841']
I got no problem forcing people to volunteer, as long as it's not for suicide missions.
[/quote]

I have no problem forcing people to draw square circles.

~Sternhauser

[dairygirl4u2c]

while not exactly on point about forced work. the popes are clear about welfare and entitlements being a 'left' issue. and stern is trying to talk about square circles....

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' timestamp='1288917520' post='2184957']
while not exactly on point about forced work. the popes are clear about welfare and entitlements being a 'left' issue. and stern is trying to talk about square circles....
[/quote]

A square circle is exactly like a person who is "forced to volunteer." A complete contradiction in terms. An impossibility.

~Sternhauser

[Winchester]

The term is "voluntold."

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='Winchester' timestamp='1288920470' post='2184970']
The term is "voluntold."
[/quote]

1Up.

~Sternhauser

[Era Might]

[quote name='Winchester' timestamp='1288879169' post='2184708']These people usually equate the word 'right' with the word 'entitled,' and they usually feel that others should provide services to all regardless of the person's ability to pay. I've noticed that most of these people do not provide the service which they believe should be provided even for free.[/quote]
Another way to frame this is that "rights" are turned into "needs." Thus, for example, it is said that we have a right to healthcare, and the assumption behind this modern "right" is that we "need" healthcare. Thus, our "right" to healthcare inevitably means that we no longer have the right to care for ourselves or for each other (unless you're a certified doctor). Once society establishes its "right-needs," then only the socially appointed institutions (schools, hospitals, etc.) are permitted to serve these "rights-needs." The same logic is behind our schooling institutions. The "right to learn" is no right at all, because it's not something we can claim for ourselves in freedom. Instead, the "right to learn" becomes a "need to learn," and thus only the socially appointed "teachers" are allowed to teach us. Eventually the "right-need" to learn is mandated (i.e., through compulsory schooling). Thus, "rights" (which are meant to be guarantors of freedom) become means of enslavement. We become slaves to the socially-defined "needs." In other words, we conceive of ourselves, not as people who are born to act, but as people who are born to have their needs filled. The "entitlement" that you refer to is the necessary consequence of an institutionalized society. Once you discredit the man who learns independently, once you discredit the man who is not certified by the system, once you discredit the primacy of community, then that leads to a society that conceives of each person as someone with "needs" that need to be filled, rather than as someone born with creativity and imagination to live.

Edited November 5, 2010 by Era Might