I don't 'read pieces.' I study evidence, i study historical arguments, i study human nature.

your post above doesn't make much sense.

__________________

In California, employers are required to maintain a form of fractional reserve account for unemployment purposes.

I think the employee should be allowed to pay half of that (tax) as a form of market based metric and equity since it would also form a more tangible, market-based metric, for at-will employment purposes and any privileges and immunities reserved to the people.

No, you just don't approve of it. The reality is that the government can give U.S. tax dollars to whomever it pleases, as long as there are no strings attached, and sometimes even when there are.

Providing for the general Welfare of the United States implies income transfers. What basis is there for anyone complaining about taxes, if they are free to quit and go on unemployment, at-will?

I think the line of reasoning concerning income transfers from people who have more money to people who have less money, is merely rhetoric and propaganda from those of the opposing viewpoint. Any form of Capitalism requires capital to function. Income transfers can ensure that capital circulates.

why are you so hung up on this 'at-will' unemployment? can't you see the obvious problems that might lead to? the system is abused enough as it is...

__________________

How can there be any problems of abuse, if it conforms to at-will employment doctrine and state at-will employment laws?

The system we have now is prone to abuse. We can all agree with that.

ok, describe what it is you are talking of here. What exactly is 'at will unemployment compensation, and how could it not be abused? How can it be up to someone to go on unemployment, at any time of his choosing, and that not be abusable?

'splain yoself.

__________________

It is only abuse-able to the extent at-will employment is abuse-able. How would it be abused, if anyone who claims to be "naturally" unemployed, could collect unemployment compensation?

By not following at-will employment doctrine or state at-will employment laws better, we are enabling the parent of revolution and crime, for "free".

Then there are basically no limits on government like I was arguing in another thread. You are basically admitting, right now, there are almost no limits on government. Do you even realize this?

Think of the power of being able to give 500 billion dollars a year to whomever you want.

And what have you presented in this thread as evidence?

Sucker.

You are asking the most obtuse person on Earth to "splain" himself? Good luck.

Not true. The power to spend money does not encompass all powers. I went over that in considerable detail already in this thread.

There are also many affirmative restrictions, things that the government is explicity forbidden to do.

It's exactly as I said. You say you want limited government, but what you really want is minimal government, and in a modern industrial society that's not possible. It could only work as long as we remained a simple, agrarian, mostly-rural society. As we industrialized, it became increasingly inadequate to hold the nation together, and it failed altogether in the 1860s. The minimal government that Jefferson wanted ceased to exist after (or actually during) the Civil War. It isn't coming back because it can't.

the discussion has yet to approach reality, so evidence has not been a factor

__________________

The limted govt that was the compromise that the Constitution represents was shattered intentionally by Lincoln who never rested in pursuing his Whig goals. The nation was intentionally split assunder, it was no accident of progress, only blind ambition.

__________________
Socialism doesn't create a rising tide that lifts all boats. It drains the lake and teaches the boat riders not to help themselves by rowing.

Jesus loves you, allah wants you dead

"Every government interference in the economy consists of giving an unearned benefit, extorted by force, to some men at the expense of others."

Ayn Rand

Well, I once again thank you for the discussion, I have enjoyed it. It seems we are never going to find much common ground, since you believe that government can give money to whomever it wants and I do not.