Right on!...
I have a hard time understanding all of the discussion that is going on about peoples' right to work. It's not nearly as complicated as we try to make it. Of course everyone has the right to work. A person has the right to work for themselves, and they have the right to work for anybody or any company that wants to hire them.
An individual and his or her employer can make any agreement they choose that affects them, or a group of individuals can get together and make any demands that their employer or potential employer is willing to accept. If one of the demands the group makes is that all employees join their group, and if the employer agrees to that demand,that's simple enough. If the employer doesn't agree, the employees can use any peaceful means to try to change his mind, or, barring any success with that, they can find an employer that does agree with them.
Employees have no more right to force their employer to accept their terms than the employer has to force the employees accept his terms. That way nobodys's rights get violated.
It's a pretty fair system. Out side of making sure no one violates another person's rights, I don't understand for sure why people want to get the government involved in it. I suspect it is because they don't understand what constitutes a "right", or that one person's right can't conflict another person's right, and still be considered a right.
Understanding what qualifies as a right has been a passion of mine for a long time. I wrote This Story concerning rights a few years ago. Here is an excerpt from it concerning rights:
Your rights cannot conflict with someone else’s rights. If something you decide to do requires or leads to the initiation of force against another person, then it isn’t a right.
Yes, you have the right to join with any number of people and pool your resources for your retirement. No, you don’t have the right to force someone to join your group.
Yes, you have the right defend yourself against violence. No, you don’t have the right to initiate violence.
Yes, you have the right to donate to any cause or charity you choose. No, you don’t have the right to force anybody else to donate.
Yes, you have the right to seek an education. No, you don’t have the right to take someone’s home if they decide they don’t want to pay for your education.
Yes, you have the right to own and control your property. No you don’t have the right to control someone else’s property.
Yes, you have the right to prevent people from smoking on your property. No, you don’t have the right to prevent people from smoking on their property.
Rights belong to individuals. While every person in a group has rights, belonging to a group does not give you more rights than a single person.
This group of people that is our government needs to realize they cannot grant or take away our rights. They can only protect those rights, or prevent us from practicing them. I’d prefer a government that protects them.
I think if we all understood a little more about rights, we wouldn't be so anxious to have the government walk all over them.
An individual and his or her employer can make any agreement they choose that affects them, or a group of individuals can get together and make any demands that their employer or potential employer is willing to accept. If one of the demands the group makes is that all employees join their group, and if the employer agrees to that demand,that's simple enough. If the employer doesn't agree, the employees can use any peaceful means to try to change his mind, or, barring any success with that, they can find an employer that does agree with them.
Employees have no more right to force their employer to accept their terms than the employer has to force the employees accept his terms. That way nobodys's rights get violated.
It's a pretty fair system. Out side of making sure no one violates another person's rights, I don't understand for sure why people want to get the government involved in it. I suspect it is because they don't understand what constitutes a "right", or that one person's right can't conflict another person's right, and still be considered a right.
Understanding what qualifies as a right has been a passion of mine for a long time. I wrote This Story concerning rights a few years ago. Here is an excerpt from it concerning rights:
Your rights cannot conflict with someone else’s rights. If something you decide to do requires or leads to the initiation of force against another person, then it isn’t a right.
Yes, you have the right to join with any number of people and pool your resources for your retirement. No, you don’t have the right to force someone to join your group.
Yes, you have the right defend yourself against violence. No, you don’t have the right to initiate violence.
Yes, you have the right to donate to any cause or charity you choose. No, you don’t have the right to force anybody else to donate.
Yes, you have the right to seek an education. No, you don’t have the right to take someone’s home if they decide they don’t want to pay for your education.
Yes, you have the right to own and control your property. No you don’t have the right to control someone else’s property.
Yes, you have the right to prevent people from smoking on your property. No, you don’t have the right to prevent people from smoking on their property.
Rights belong to individuals. While every person in a group has rights, belonging to a group does not give you more rights than a single person.
This group of people that is our government needs to realize they cannot grant or take away our rights. They can only protect those rights, or prevent us from practicing them. I’d prefer a government that protects them.
I think if we all understood a little more about rights, we wouldn't be so anxious to have the government walk all over them.
Labels: Right to work
posted by Rex Bell at 11:30 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home