richardhutnik said:
I bolded the above for a reason. There are issues with using rights as a basis of ethics. The main thing above would be the idea that people have a "right" to a job. In a society a job is not best thought of as a right. It is more of a duty, or something else. By having the ability to work increasingly become something of a crapshoot in regards to whether you get one, and playing by the rules, and being trustworthy not even being able to be trusted as doable, along with the lack of hope that it can turn around, you are looking at a society that will break down, and not remain stable. If work in society doesn't even afford you a roof over your hear, and food, then you have a society that will break down. For a society to work, there has to be a degree of confidence by its members that if they play by the rules, they don't end up with shortened lives. |
That's really not true at all though ...
Throughout history, and even throughout most of the world today, people have struggled to obtain the most basic of necessities in countries with economic systems that are clearly unfair and yet society did not "break down". The kind of wealth and economic security that has been provided by democratic capitalism is remarkably unusual in the grand scheme of things.
Certainly, we're a long way away from a system which is free from corruption to the extent that everyone is on a level playing field; but we're also far away from the arbitrary reward system and extreme corruption in Feudalism, Monarchies and Communism.
