pittbulll, I covered self-employment when I said one could find another job. Working for yourself is still a job.
I guess you covered crime as well or any other aspect of survival then
I'm not sure how to respond to this. It seems to have nothing to do with what we were talking about, so you may have to elaborate.
When you said he could get another job it evidently covered every aspect of survival that requires at least a minimal amount of labor , so you win by the shear magnitude of your statement
Well, no, it would not cover the right to violate the rights of others.
I just have a question. Who doesn't work for someone else? With your loose definition of slavery, it would be hard to argue anyone is not one.
I will answer your question if you answer mine who doesn't work for them selves
Slaves(as in, people who are owned by, and are the property of someone else), and only slaves.
does he not work so that the master does not beat him therefore he is working for his own good
You are correct every one does work for some one else. Unless he is on a deserted island. My point is the relationship between employer and employee has swung too far in the employers favor. Now it probably costs them more to get health insurance that is tailored to an employers religion but the employer has the right to force his religion on his employee . That is not religious freedom of the employee
So the employee should be able to force his religion on the employer? Is that what you're saying?
An employer can't "force" his religion on an employee. The employee is free to leave that employer.
If what you mean by, "That is not religious freedom of the employee," is that having absolutely no exposure to anything related to religion under any circumstance is a right, from where is that right derived?
The employer is free to fire the employee , with benefits
I don't understand what you were saying about insurance tailored to an employer's religion, then.
Why should an employer fire an employee for not accepting his insurance? What difference does that make to the employer? The employee continuing to work for that employer is acceptance of the employer's conditions.
why should an employee refuse to eat because he is asked to do something he disagrees with
I said nothing like that-not even close.
If you refuse to work , than you refuse to eat Money = work= food
As I believe you have pointed out before, the ex-employee could grow his own food. He/She could also get another job and work for someone he/she agrees with.
I'm pretty sure your statement is considered some type of logical fallacy. You can refuse to work, and not refuse to eat. You would have been closer if you'd said something like, "If you refuse to work, then you will have no money to purchase food to eat."
The difference in our points of view is that you feel that bringing an uninvolved third party into a dispute, then allowing the third party to force its views on one party is a good way to settle differences. I think that allowing the two parties with a stake in the matter to come to an agreement is a good thing.
Your solutions tend to be something like this: An employee doesn't agree with his employer's demands, so he hires a thug to come in and put a gun to his employer's head while slowly squeezing the trigger until the employer changes his demands.
My solutions tend to be something like this: An employee doesn't agree with his employer's demands, so he quits his job. He did not have to force anything on his employer. His employer did not have to force anything on him.
My scenario could also play out like this: An employee doesn't agree with his employer's demands, but doesn't think he can make enough money to support his lifestyle anywhere else, so he continues working for his employer and decides to change to meet his employer's demands. Again, neither employer nor employee had to force anything on the other.
it takes money to buy seed ??????
If this ex-employee has smoked away all the money he earned and has none left with which to purchase seed, he may want to rethink his priorities, as well as begin looking for another job(be it working for himself or another).
Freedom entails consequence. It seems you're arguing there should be no consequences for actions.