[fiveoak]

A lot of people have a hard time showing empathy for others. Part of it can be due to immaturity or being overly sheltered, lack of social skills, etc. It's easy to be critical of others that make bad decisions but EVERYONE makes bad decisions, being imperfect and making mistakes is part of being human, and what might be easy for one person might not be easy for another person.

[Arete31415]

Yes. Talk about blaming the victim. We're putting 800,000 out of work for no reason and it's their fault? Give me a break.

[noir_lord]

Empathy is the crux.

You don't have to accept someones view point to have empathy for people.

You also have to remember that life is messy and complex and there is rarely a single proximate cause for anything.

I tend to regard any sentence that starts "It's their fault because <single thing>" or "It simple, you just do <single thing>" with deep suspicion.

It would be nice if life actually had simple answers once in a while though.

[czbond]

I don't think it is that it isn't understood that people make different lifestyle and economic decisions and we all pay for our decisions somehow no matter what they are; The sensationalism, victimization blaming, and "woe is me" that a small minority and media raise. No one is entitled to income, a job, or having others pay for their expenses. It is a "take the lump, become stronger, make a plan for now and later, accept it, move on" situation. I feel empathy but can parse the humanity from economic decisions. That said, workers should be paid during a shutdown.

[TelmoMenezes]

> No one is entitled to income, a job, or having others pay for their expenses.

According to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, of which the USA is a signatory, they do. Namely:

Article 22.

Everyone, as a member of society, has the right to social security and is entitled to realization, through national effort and international co-operation and in accordance with the organization and resources of each State, of the economic, social and cultural rights indispensable for his dignity and the free development of his personality.

Article 23.

(1) Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment.

(2) Everyone, without any discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equal work.

(3) Everyone who works has the right to just and favourable remuneration ensuring for himself and his family an existence worthy of human dignity, and supplemented, if necessary, by other means of social protection.

[ConceptJunkie]

I think you read this too quickly. It doesn't say anything about being entitled to a job. It says people have the right to work.

It's not saying the government owes you a job, but that the government can't stop you from working. There is protection against unemployment, but that does not imply the protection must be absolute because, of course, that's impossible.

It's a big difference.

[czbond]

I think we were tripping up over my use of "entitle" - which I simply mean as not required to receive, without first giving. So, for example, because I exist does not simply mean I am owed a job, owed income, etc. I'm getting off topic a bit from my original intent, however.

[TelmoMenezes]

You made a moral statement:

"No one is entitled to income, a job, or having others pay for their expenses."

This can only be interpreted as a description of what you believe the values of your society to be. Of course, some people have contracts that in fact entitle them to work. But that is not what you mean. You mean that, in the abstract, society does not owe you a job, or a way to provide for yourself, or help if you need it.

The Declaration of Human Rights is also a set of moral statements. It is not law, it is a description of a fundamental set of values that the signatories agree are their own too. It does not go in the direction of "just because you exist, you are not entitled to anything". It goes in the direction of: "the point of society is to give people opportunities to life fulfilling and meaningful lives and sometimes they need help".

[nybble41]

That might be relevant if the things enumerated in the so-called Universal Declaration of Human Rights were actually rights. Or universal. Or at least not riddled with internal contradictions and subjective qualifiers...

Article 22

> in accordance with the organization and resources of each State

So basically each State decides how serious it is about this. Apparently the organization of this State permits shutdowns and furloughs, which is enough to satisfy Article 22.

> of the economic, social and cultural rights indispensable for his dignity and the free development of his personality

Subjective to the point of meaninglessness, but there is plentiful evidence to support the notion that one's dignity and personal development can survive in the absence of a government job. Or any job, for that matter.

Article 23

> Everyone has the right to work

No one is being told they aren't allowed to work. The right to work does not guarantee gainful employment in your preferred field or with any specific employer.

> to free choice of employment

Neither is anyone being told they must perform any particular job; everyone is free to choose from among the positions available in the open job market. At this time that simply doesn't happen to include any government jobs, at least not if you want to get paid. There are plenty of private positions available, though.

> to just and favourable conditions of work

Subjective. Unless you're being coerced, your choice to remain is sufficient evidence for me that you consider the conditions "just and favorable" compared to your next-best alternative, which is all that anyone can reasonably expect.

> and to protection against unemployment.

Here's the first part that might actually be considered a statement of entitlement to income and/or having others pay your expenses. It would be unreasonable to expect this protection to last forever, though. It comes with the expectation that one is actively seeking new employment. "Protection against unemployment" is not UBI.

> (2) Everyone, without any discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equal work.

Non-discrimination does not guarantee income, a job, or paid expenses, so long as these are doled out (or not) equitably, so this part not applicable.

> (3) Everyone who works has the right to just and favourable remuneration

There's that subjective "just and favorable" language again. No one reasonable is going to guarantee a livable income for yourself and your family merely on the basis of effort without regard for whether the work is actually productive. If you and your employer come to a voluntary agreement on the terms of your employment, that proves the resulting terms "just and favorable" enough to suit you—and no one else's opinion matters.

> and supplemented, if necessary, by other means of social protection.

The conditions to make this "necessary" are not defined, so we can just say it's never necessary and ignore this clause altogether. There is always another option.

[UncleMeat]

Nobody is entitled to a job. But if you work you are entitled to pay. The truly egregious thing here is all the people that are required to work without pay, preventing them from getting a different job.

[leereeves]

They aren't really required to work [without pay]. They're allowed to quit.

They're just required to work [without being paid immediately] if they want to keep the job, with the promise that they'll be paid later.

Edit: Except for the Coast Guard, for whom the current situation really sucks.

[inferiorhuman]

Coast Guard aside, various federal employees are prohibited from having second jobs or looking for other work.

[mike10010100]

> They aren't really required to work. They're allowed to quit. They're just required to work if they want to keep the job

I'm not really required to breathe, but if I don't, I'll stop living.

So...yeah...that's what's known as a requirement.

[leereeves]

Obviously I meant "work at that job" as in "work without pay", but I'll edit my post to make that clear.

[HarryHirsch]

No one is entitled to income, a job, or having others pay for their expenses

That is an assertion, not a statement of fact. Christian values actually teach the exact opposite, and that's why Jesus said that one cannot serve God and Mammon at the same time.

[ConceptJunkie]

You're drawing the wrong conclusions. Christianity teaches the duties of people towards others, including people are slaves. It doesn't talk about rights, because it's smart enough to understand you can't have a right to a finite resource.

Christianity always only talks about what you need to give, and never says anything about what you need to get, including anything you get from God, which is always undeserved and only happens through His mercy and generosity.

This is even acknowledged obliquely when Christ states that we will always have the poor. By saying that we can't serve God and Mammon, He's saying that we cannot make money for money's sake, but must use it justly in the service of God.

[HarryHirsch]

You could say that every human being is entitled to dignity because we are all descended from Adam, who was created in the image of God. Whoever acts as if that weren't the case is a serious blasphemer.

Somewhere the Jewish Sages made that argument because someone considered the weakness in the Golden Rule: what if someone treats everyone with meanness and expects the same in return? It would make an awful society.

[ConceptJunkie]

Sure, but any material effects of being entitled to dignity require a positive action from others.

We are still talking about the responsibilities of people to treat others in this way. I think it's much more important in some circumstances to think less of rights and to think more of responsibilities.

It would be equivalent to say you have the right to be treated with dignity by other human beings, but again this is saying other human beings have a responsibility to treat you with dignity. If other human beings didn't exist, then you couldn't be treated with dignity by them, hence it's a responsibility of them, and not something inherent to your own being.

The "inalienable rights" to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness, don't require other people to do anything for you to retain those rights. It only prohibits them from doing certain things to you. It's a restriction on them, rather than a responsibility, and therefore, your right isn't contingent on them existing in the first place.

I don't think you and I are in disagreement.

[driverdan]

We have a secular government. Your religious views do not apply.

[HashHishBang]

>That is an assertion, not a statement of fact.

Pfft, according to you? Calling it an assertion suggests the statement lacks some form of support from reality. As opposed to the very clear fact that humans in the world are not entitled to income, a job, or having other pay for their expense.

Christian values having nothing to do with this and bringing religion into the mix won't help the discussion.

[mike10010100]

> No one is entitled to income, a job, or having others pay for their expenses.

So no life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness for these folks? Got it.

[ConceptJunkie]

You can't be "entitled" to a finite resource. It's a logical contradiction. Any rights you might have can only restrict others in preventing you from trying to obtain those things.

You don't have a right to a job, but I also don't have a right to try to prevent you from getting a job.

This is obvious in the phrase "pursuit of happiness". There's no right to happiness. You can't be restricted from pursuing happiness, but there can be no guarantee you'll get it.

Similarly, you can't be restricted from trying to get a job, but there can be no guarantee you'll get it.

So, no, no one is _entitled_ to income, a job or having others pay for their expenses. If there are no jobs, or no income, or no others to pay, how can you be entitled? That's the logical contradiction.

A right isn't something that forces someone else to do something. That's the definition of slavery. If you have the right to receive something from someone, then that someone is, at least in part, your slave.

But if you have the right to pursue your own ends, no one has a right to try to stop you. These rights are restrictions on what people can do to you, not things they are forced to do for you.

They can't just walk up and kill you for no reason. They can't just lock you up, or enslave you, for no reason. They can't stop you from doing what you want to do, for no reason.

And again, the only reason is if you, in turn, are infringing on the rights of others, and even then only in way that is governed by the rule of law.

See how that works?

[czbond]

I used the word "entitle" - which I'm not discussing rights. Nor really, broadly applying to any group. I simply mean we're all on our own, responsible for ourselves, nothing is due anyone (not applying to federal workgroups) - but we have the capabilities and rights to pursue our personal best interest (within the law/morality)

[ConceptJunkie]

This understanding is perfectly correct. Entitlements are not, and cannot be, rights.