Those quotes are talking about VOTING and CIVIL RIGHTS. You are not entitled to an income. You have to EARN that by WORKING.

You are welcome to use logic and reason concerning this scenario:

Consider a hypothetical scenario where unemployment compensation at-will is consistent with that doctrine and those state laws.

We could find ways to lower other public sector costs. If no individual market participant can claim to be in official poverty, why would they need more government services? Those services may be more cost effective if provided by the private sector utilizing money based markets and our political-economy.

If no one can claim to be in official poverty, government health care mandates would be more ethical and moral to money based markets. Such capital would be allocated at the individual level and potentially result in better products at lower cost to the individual consumer.

By solving poverty in our republic via unemployment compensation, at-will; generational forms of poverty would also only exist at-will due to a lack of money management skills; not, a poverty of money.

As a form of minimum wage, unemployment compensation, at-will, could provide a market based metric for any potential labor market participant to easily recognize for money management purposes.

Simply paying less motivated labor market participants to not provide labor input to the economy would make it easier for anyone actually wanting to work, to find work with less friction in that market and possibly with more motivated coworkers. As a moral incentive, anyone having a work ethic could pursue a form of Happiness by simply working and providing labor input to the economy for prevailing market based wages.

With sufficient potential labor market participants opting to be couch potatoes, finding suitable work could be as easy as signing up with a temp. agency and getting called and asked if you want to work for market based wages. This would involve a sufficiently motivated labor market participant to gain the skill sets that command such a rate. It could be considered a market based incentive to work.

Consider the actual scenario where i would rather die of plague than pay someone one red cent to sit on their duff.

As a moral incentive, anyone having a work ethic could pursue a form of Happiness by simply working and providing labor input to the economy for prevailing market based wages. It could be considered more moral to pursue Happiness while also eliminating poverty in our republic.

I don't mind eliminating poverty with my tax money when I am pursuing forms of happiness. That is the moral I am trying to describe.

It is not. Its based on socialism, not capitalism. The government, and by extension the people who it draws both its power and its money from, is in no way shape or form required to pay people to sit on their asses and do jack shit for the rest of their lives.

If it was in the laws we'd be doing it now wouldn't we?

In other words, you don't have enough logic or reason and have to resort to fallacy.

You are welcome to argue your point. It just makes it harder to consider you very credible because of your use of fallacy in our discussion.

Right, YOU don't mind. Most Everyone else does. Good thing youre not our benevolent dictator huh?

As a form of morals, your point of view could be considered less moral and is less ethical than simply paying people to not provide labor input to the economy, and being able to pursue more market friendly forms of Happiness as a result.

All you're trying to do is exchange one free ride for another and again, that is totally STUPID. We should be tightening qualifications on free rides, not making it easier. If Joe Blow chooses not to work, then Joe Blow deserves to live in poverty. If Joe Blow has a job but loses it due to cutbacks, then he can draw unemployment and get government assistance but it should all have a cutoff date. I don't like my tax dollars going to someone that is lazy when I've worked most of my life to get what I have. I have absolutely no sympathy for idiots that choose not to work and they can live under a bridge somewhere for all I care.

__________________






"Life should NOT be a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in an attractive and well preserved body, but rather to skid in sideways - Chardonnay in one hand - chocolate in the other - body thoroughly used up, totally worn out, and screaming "WOO HOO, What a Ride!"

Its a simple principle that i'm uncompromising on. If you want money you have to earn it. I'm not going to give it to you. Seeing as i'm a citizen and i pay my taxes, its MY money the government would be giving away. I don't want my government to do that and my views reflect that. Its also the reality of the situation that at will EMPLOYMENT has nothing to do with at will UNEMPLOYMENT. They are two entirely different concepts. At will employment means an employer can hire whoever he wants to work for him who wants to work for him. At will unemployment is welfare (which is disagree with strongly) for anyone and everyone that applies, indefinietly. Those two concepts are WILDLY different and your comparing of the two is a false analogy which if i'm not mistaken is itself a fallacy if you want to go down that road.

Guess i'm not moral or ethical by your standards then. Whatever shall i do? How shall i live with myself? O wait by my standards I AM ethical so i guess i'll just disregard your insane, assine rantings.

A moral and ethical goal is to eliminate poverty in our republic. Why quibble about that cost, when those in the majority don't seem to mind the wasteful expense of a war on drugs.

That is what I am referring to. The morals and ethics written in our Constitution, and a delegated authority and commandment to provide for the general welfare.

Eliminating official poverty in our republic is holy and moral, even if we have to pay someone to do nothing; instead of being less moral and less ethical, and letting them sleep under a bridge. You have admitted you don't have sufficient morals to care enough about fellow human beings.

You are always welcome to your unsubstantiated opinion.

However, I would like to discuss this scenario with anyone who wants an argument and not a quarrel.

Consider a hypothetical scenario where unemployment compensation at-will is consistent with that doctrine and those state laws.

We could find ways to lower other public sector costs. If no individual market participant can claim to be in official poverty, why would they need more government services? Those services may be more cost effective if provided by the private sector utilizing money based markets and our political-economy.

If no one can claim to be in official poverty, government health care mandates would be more ethical and moral to money based markets. Such capital would be allocated at the individual level and potentially result in better products at lower cost to the individual consumer.

By solving poverty in our republic via unemployment compensation, at-will; generational forms of poverty would also only exist at-will due to a lack of money management skills; not, a poverty of money.

As a form of minimum wage, unemployment compensation, at-will, could provide a market based metric for any potential labor market participant to easily recognize for money management purposes.

Simply paying less motivated labor market participants to not provide labor input to the economy would make it easier for anyone actually wanting to work, to find work with less friction in that market and possibly with more motivated coworkers. As a moral incentive, anyone having a work ethic could pursue a form of Happiness by simply working and providing labor input to the economy for prevailing market based wages.

With sufficient potential labor market participants opting to be couch potatoes, finding suitable work could be as easy as signing up with a temp. agency and getting called and asked if you want to work for market based wages. This would involve a sufficiently motivated labor market participant to gain the skill sets that command such a rate. It could be considered a market based incentive to work.

I think you really do believe the bullshit you write!!!! OMG what good drugs you must have!!!!!!!

I care about humans but I'm not going to support someone just because they're too lazy to work and to suggest that someone do so is the sign of stupidity, IMO. Is it moral for a healthy adult to expect the government to pay for him to sit at home on his ass? Hell, no! But you're more than welcome to work and pay your neighbor to sit home if that would make you happy. As for me...this sums it up:
Or the modern version:

__________________






"Life should NOT be a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in an attractive and well preserved body, but rather to skid in sideways - Chardonnay in one hand - chocolate in the other - body thoroughly used up, totally worn out, and screaming "WOO HOO, What a Ride!"

All it takes is logic, reason, and simple American English.