Why do you to resort to forms of censorship instead of individual liberty? We have a Constitution for a reason; and it includes a First and Ninth Amendment.

You are welcome to provide a rebuttal for the argument I presented. Feel free to describe an alternative scenario based on your arguments or opinions.

Sure. We cut welfare and food stamps because its not in the governments purview to provide free money/services. You want to go on welfare you must perform a service, hold down a job, or go to school. There is no acceptable way to eliminate poverty, not without giving the government WAY too much power, which I and apparently most other citizens find unacceptable.
I could stop all crime, I'd just have to suspend the rights of free speech, privacy, due process, the right to bear arms and a few other miniscule things.

How is your point of view different from the command economics of Communism? In some communist States official poverty doesn't exist because everyone is required to have a job or go to jail.

We have one of the largest and most developed economies in the world; we can afford to pay people to pursue Happiness, while solving official poverty in our republic even if it means ending our socialized wars on abstractions and the statism they engender.

Unemployment compensation, at-will, conforms to at-will employment doctrine and state at-will employment laws, and our Ninth Amendment.

We could be paying people to uphold the values embodied by their Constitution through consistent application of any laws pursuant to it, instead of letting them the resort to imitating Vandals for free as is the case with our current and less efficient public policies.

See thats EVERYONE. I'm only talking about the people that want a hand out. Nothing is free, especially my tax dollars.

We have the largest deficit in the world because of programs like the ones youre suggesting. Trillions of dollars. We do have to pay that back you know. We can't just wave our magic wand and make it disappear.
We cannot afford to pay people to do nothing. That will be the final nail in the coffin of our economy.

It does not. How do we go from an employer being able to hire and fire at will to the government paying people to do nothing. You are NOT entitled to income. YOU have to EARN it.

You asked what i would do. I told you. I don't think our current policies are effective. Neither do i think yours would be effective, desirable, or even Constitutional.

If a public policy is consistently applied, why would it be less just, as a form of social justice, than public policy that allows economic based discrimination and unequal application of some laws concerning equity as a form of social justice.

We don't have massive deficits due to programs that provide for the general welfare, since those types of public sector business ventures could be generating revenue to defray public sector costs, or at least, providing revenue that can be taxed by local governments on a more consistent basis. A form of trickle down for governments.

Consistent application of at-will employment doctrine and state at-will employment laws is what I am referring to. How can anyone who is naturally unemployed "earn" anything? From my perspective, it can be considered immoral and is less ethical to allow for the immorality or unethicality of a natural unemployment rate than it is to pay people to do "nothing" while being good patriots to their Ninth Amendment.

You are welcome to devise more socialistic means to eliminate a natural unemployment rate since it can be considered less moral and less ethical to have a natural unemployment rate in a more developed and modern political-economy; especially, if it can be conducive to a poverty of market based wage income.

Youre not creating any money. Youre taking it from one group of taxpayers and giving it away to jackasses that sit on their duffs for the rest of their lives being nothing but a constant drain. Thats theft in my book. Theft is immoral.

Maybe they could get a job. thats a start. there are all kinds of positions. go pick fruit, etc. be a day laborer. be a janitor. be a trashman. do those jobs that "americans won't do".

I know what youre referring to and i'm telling you you are wrong. At will employment does not translate to at will UNemployment. Explain to me the logic behind that. Tell me exactly how you think at will employment carries over to giving tax money away to people so they can sit on the couch for the rest of their lives.

I don't want socialism. I want capitalism. socialism is what got us in the shitter to begin with. Youre never going to be able to solve for poverty unless you go to communism which i find unacceptable.

Reducing the cost of Government can still lower our tax burden. Unemployment compensation, at-will, could be as easy to administer as minimum wage laws. We could eliminate welfare, as we currently know it, by attrition. How much more Government would we need if no one can claim to be in poverty in our republic?

How can what you claim be true, if we have a natural unemployment rate? That means that not everyone who wants a job can have one. From an opposing viewpoint perspective, it is more immoral to allow that form of theft than it is to correct that inefficiency in the labor market by providing recourse to unemployment compensation at-will. Anyone who applies for it could end generational poverty for themselves at-will. That is usually considered moral even if it costs tax money. And, most people on unemployment at-will would be paying local taxes on consumer goods with their more consistent disposable income.


Here is a general explanation of the doctrine I am referring to.

This is the part I am quibbling about: "any hiring is presumed to be "at will"; that is, the employer is free to discharge individuals "for good cause, or bad cause, or no cause at all," and the employee is equally free to quit, strike, or otherwise cease work."

Why do you claim that a for-cause stipulation must exist for one party and not the other party under at-will employment doctrine?

At-will employment doctrine seems pretty clear and easy to understand. It can also be that simple to solve poverty in our republic.

Right, an employer can hire or fire at will. And an employee can apply, accept, strike, quit at will. That does not in any way shape or form translate to at will UNEMPLOYMENT. Thanks for proving me right.

Actually, unemployment at-will already works for the employer; since any at-will employer can unemploy (discharge etc.) an at-will employee. The unemployment caused by terminating an at-will employment agreement is what I am referring to concerning equal protection of the law.

If an employer can initiate unemployment at-will (for an employee), then so can an employee, with no "for-cause" employment liability should that at-will employee choose "to quit, strike, or otherwise cease work." Hence, unemployment at-will that conforms to at-will employment doctrine and state at-will employment laws.

We already have the compelling interest of eliminating poverty in our republic and an unnecessary War on Poverty with resources that can be better allocated to improve our economy.

Unemployment compensation, at-will, as a form of market friendly public policy, could lower public and private sector costs. Hiring an individual costs money. An employer could potentially realize savings in hiring more motivated individuals who actually want to work instead of couch potatoes who would be better off simply being paid not to waste an employers time and money; because they would be more able to go to school, learn a vocation or hobby, or simply pursue ethic and moral of Happiness, as enumerated in our social contract.

the consequences of quitting your job is not having any income. otherwise no one would work.
an employer has a right to terminate or hire anyone he wants for any reason (except for racism which is illegal) at any time. likewise an employee can quit or accept any job at any time. thats equal and fair. If you get fired you can go on unemployment for a little bit until you get back on your feet. Thats worlds apart from anyone at anytime for anyreason for any length of time getting paid to do absolutely nothing.

Concerning this type of social transaction, why do you believe unequal protection of the laws should be the case, if we have a compelling interest in eliminating poverty and an existing expense of a War on Poverty? Unemployment at-will already works for the employer; since any at-will employer can unemploy (discharge etc.) an at-will employee. The unemployment caused by terminating an at-will employment agreement is what I am referring to concerning equal protection of the law.

Why do you believe that unequal protection that results in denying or disparaging the individual liberty enumerated in our Ninth Amendment should be more compelling than actually eliminating official poverty in our republic, even if it means paying some people to be couch potatoes? Are you also in favor of dismantling more of our Bill of Rights with more laws that do not provide for the general Welfare of the United States?

If an employer can initiate unemployment at-will (for an employee), then so can an employee, with no "for-cause" employment liability should that at-will employee choose "to quit, strike, or otherwise cease work." Hence, unemployment at-will that conforms to at-will employment doctrine and state at-will employment laws.

Why do you advocate the immorality of not complying with laws pursuant to our Constitution, even if it involves paying people to not provide labor input to the economy as a form of Ninth Amendment privilege and immunity; and what separates us from a truer form of command economy.

its equal. employers can hire and fire. employees can apply and quit. equal.

if an employer fires you you can get on unemployment for a bit. Not indefinitely or for no reason.

Youre way off base

You may be missing the goal of such public policy; to eliminate poverty in our republic. How does your scenario eliminate poverty and reduce the cost of a War on Poverty and forms of fraud associated with our current and less efficient social safety net? We are already wasting money that some people are willing to commit fraud for. Unemployment compensation, at-will, would reduce the incentive for that form of fraud. We could be lowering the cost of Government by being more moral to our Ninth Amendment.

Concerning the phrase "to quit, strike, or otherwise cease work." Simply invoking that part of at-will employment doctrine would render unemployment compensation, at-will, compatible with that doctrine and those state laws.

You can't. I'm not trying to. Its always going to be there, like death, taxes, and stds. Its natural in any capitalist system. Which is what america is founded on. Which is why america is the worlds only remaining superpower (though the socialists in power right now are doing their damndest to turn this into the third world)

You quit you don't get unemployment. If you choose to terminate your employment you don't get shit. Thanks for playing

How did you reach your conclusion that simply paying people to not be in official poverty, will not work? Unemployment compensation already exists. It could be that simple in our political-economy for anyone who professes to have morals that would allow eliminating official poverty in our republic even it if mean paying some people to simply pursue Happiness like it says in our social contract.

I can agree with you that third world, Capitalist countries cannot afford to eliminate poverty. We do not have a third world, Capitalist economy, but a first world socialized economy.