Amazon.com Widgets

Are jobs a form of slavery since money is required to function in society?

Asked by: Humanity-Judge
  • P.O.W. Is precedent to slavery.

    Not all salves were ill-treated and a rare well-treated save is still a slave.
    Constitutional we need to agree on what makes a person a slave?
    Slavery is defined by precedent as person held accountable as a forced payment to the cost of War. Slavery is an undertaking that can fall upon any concord society not just invaded nations, as War can be raged on society itself and not the Nation the War is conducted in. A society must often address loss or defeat publicly as well as a victory. This is the starting point of slavery in society and by basic principle how a person is enslaved. The P.O.W. Was not automatically made a slave by exchange of money, and not all P.O.W’s are slaves because they are held as prisoner of war. There is no such thing as Constitutional interpretation of state of the union. There is only state of the union.
    Slavery was a form of compensation to the cost of battle in War. Leaving us with a complex and often hard to understand explanation the answer asked, are jobs a form of slavery? Yes, a job can be slavery. It may be hard to understand how, it may be hard to understand why, but a Job can and may be proved as a form of slavery, it is not automatic as condition of terms of understanding are not governed by legislation well, and is not an attempted to undermined the suffering many have felt due to slavery.
    Jobs are forced on people under law and taxation, as a cost to pay debt of War. It is only the second part of the question that is incorrect, it is not the ability to function in society, nor the need of money that makes a job a form of slavery. These are things that can makes a person a criminal upon steps of basic separation. No job worked with hated, lack of pay, or internship are instantly forms of slavery, nor are jobs assigned because a court requires a payment be a compensation to separation.
    Slavery is that point that punishment has be legislated through Panel and law only, and not constitutionally judicial separated with documentation of jury as a common defense to the general welfare. To basic understanding, slavery is a Democratic freedom, freedom the word that has no self-value. Democratic freedom is not a democratic liberty.

    1. Work alone cannot make a person a Slave, nor can it make a person a P.O.W.
    2. Abraham Lincoln, President elect #16, Executive officer to the United States of America did not in end slavery. The period of time between 1861 -1963 simply made it less likely that a P.O.W. Could ever be legally held again by private citizens of the United States by international request, or public sale.

  • Jobs aren't slavery.

    1. Jobs aren't forced.
    Although money is essential, it is still the employee's choice to go to work.
    2. The labor (generally) isn't extreme.
    The work that is preformed by employees isn't typically harmful, unlike the labor of a slave.
    3. Employees have rights.
    Unlike slaves, employees have rights and are able to defend their rights by law.
    Example: If an employee is being stolen from by their employers, they have the right to take legal action against said employer. Slaves, unlike employees, have no rights and are treated like property.
    4. Employees have benefits.
    Workers usually receive benefits such as paid vacation, discounts, and free products. This differs from slavery because slave's opinions and desires are often disregarded. Additionally, slaves don't gat any breaks or vacations.
    5. Employers often supply insurance.
    If a worker gets hurt on the job, the company usually supplies insurance. If the company fails to supply sufficient health or medical insurance, the worker has the right to sue their employers for "unsafe working conditions." This differs from a slave because slaves are often treated as property and, likewise, aren't given any rights. Slave owners would likely disregard any injuries and continue to force labor. If an employer forces an injured worker to work in condions that are unsafe, they can be sued and even imprisoned.
    6. Employers can't hurt their employees.
    Slaves are often beaten if they don't co-operate or obey their owners. If adults hit other adults, they are charged with assault.

    I hope that these points were helpful in some way to change your perspective, however, feel free to correct any of my mistakes (I'm sure I made plenty). I currently am unemployed, because I am a minor, so I don't know too much about American labor laws (assuming your from America.) Additionally, I am from America, so I don't know anything about laws pertaining to employment in other countries. Also, since I am a minor, I may have made many grammical errors, of which I applogize for.

  • In most cases, you can move up and become the master.

    The only case a job is equivalent to slavery is if you are given just enough to live on, and no chance to move up. In that case, taking advantage of your basic need to live is slavery. This is rare in most first world countries but common place in others, like india and china.

    In most cases when working, you have the opportunity to move up, and become more powerful. Work can be freedom, a choice you make in how you live and what you do. The real question is if we are slaves to the government.

  • Alternatives are available. To whom are you a slave?

    While they may not be the best alternatives, begging and welfare are options. Also functioning in society is not a requirement for life, many people don't function in society.

    Additionally, if you are self employed, then to whom are you a slave? There are two options- 1) employer or 2) government.
    1) Working for your employer is your choice alone. He also has a job. Who is his slave-master?
    2) While I wouldn't disagree with the government forcing you to work to pay taxes is moral, In fact, if you changed the reasoning behind your question from 'required to function in society' to 'required to not be imprisoned,' I would agree with you. How the question stands now, I cannot agree.

  • Jobs are used to make society go around

    If there were no jobs even if people still got paid nothing would work there would be no more houses being made and no more doctors also many people only go into work because they enjoy what they are doing like being a pediatrician or politician so basically jobs are Americas foundation.

  • It is most certainly not

    You are not forced to have a job, you can be happily homeless and jobsless, people may judge you, but no one gives a damn. Someone gets a job to improve their lifestyle, their health, to make improve general welfare and maybe getting a better house. Jobs are not a form of slavery as you can quit your job whenever you want, whether its because of a too low salary or because of unhappiness or whatever. Yes, money is necessary to function in society, but one earns money to improve their lives, or lives of other

  • This question is kind of ridiculous...

    Comparing a consensual relationship between employer and employee where the employee offers effort in exchange for the employer offering money to slavery, where a person is forced to do a certain kind of work for no benefit other than their daily bread, and have no rights as the enslaved, is abominable. It smacks of entitlement and Marxism, frankly.

    The flip of this is the idea that, if a job is a form of slavery, then someone else other than YOU is responsible to provide for you, as if the world owes you your daily bread just for existing. Should people simply be given enough money to exist whether they work or not? Wouldn't that be theft? And if everyone was entitled to this, where would that money come from, given that people would have no reason to work? And then, would the government and people who actually DID work become slaves to the people who chose NOT to work?

    Technically speaking, we could go back to a bartering society where you would literally say 'I made this thing, would you exchange that thing for this thing, given that we owe each other nothing outside this transaction?'

    No, implicit in this question is an idea of entitlement to your daily bread regardless of what you bring to the table. I think we would be better off to recognize that no one owes anyone anything, and the degree of your success in life correlates with what you bring to the table to begin with. This is the central flaw of the Marxist/socialist bent that an awful lot of people seem to be on at the moment.


Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.