A real buzzkill (seriously; the environment dudes)

[Monty3038]

Our current rendition of this artificial construct systemically denies the capacity to provide for many, many people. The overwhelming majority of the poor and starving in our world are so not because they choose not to provide for themselves, but because they can't. The system will not let them.

I'm not sure I can buy into this statement as well... let me explain after your next paragraph...

Providing for oneself in modernism is predicated upon the existence of adequate employment. When that employment is not adequate, the people are systemically denied the ability to provide for themselves.

Hmm... so if there is unemployment, one cannot provide for themselves? I see where you feel that I cannot provide for my family if I cannot find work, but if that work is inadequate to provide for my family, then just having employment is not sufficient. You have to have a 'livable income' or work for the state, and let the state provide you what is determined to be your basic subsistence. This is the basis of a 'minimum wage' which, while we all know is not enough to support a family, is a start down this road... of which I also disagree with.

The ability to provide for oneself is a basic human right that has only achieved some level of actualization in a small number of nations. US is maybe about halfway there.

The ability to provide for oneself is a skill, not a right. When you are born you cannot provide for yourself, you learn to as you are raised... and if you are not taught how to provide for yourself, you become a ward of the state and thus the cycle continues... I really don't like this type of thinking as it proliferates the need for welfare and state run subsistence of people, which I think leads directly down the road to socialism/communism, which is where I think a lot of your thinking is heading. If the state/country/government/tribal leaders determine that this is the minimum you must have to survive, and they will provide it for you.. and you will work this job to obtain it... I think we can all see where that leads... to doing the bare minimum to obtain the bare minimum for survival...

Besides all that, a society that designates the right to employment is a much, much better one to live in. Production, health, happiness and a whole bunch of good stuff increases dramatically when the least fortunate of a society receiving a helping hand. Instead of dragging it down and going for things like crime, they become productive members. Don't let some arbitrary political philosophy hinder actual good policy

I don't think this is arbitrary political policy. A society that designates the right to OPPORTUNITY is a much better one to live in. I don't want one where everyone is guaranteed a job... not everyone wants a job, not everyone deserves a job. I also don't want minimum wages, you earn what you are worth. If an employer feels you are worth more, you make more. If an employer cannot afford to pay you what you feel you are worth, they will not hire you.

I agree it is noble to lend a helping hand. That is what a limited unemployment program of 13 weeks is for. That is what limited welfare with restrictions including no further payments for further family size increases, and limited terms on benefits for able bodied adults is for... the relentless never ending welfare cycle we currently live in, in the US, is a self-defeating prophecy that keeps people down as they have no incentive to change.

Ok... soap box over... I'm sure our views don't coincide, and I'm not sure we would find a middle ground, but that is the point of a democratic society...