Long-term jobless 'could face compulsory manual labour'

Originally posted by Cosmic4life
y is to work it must flow freely and not be coveted by anyone.

Money is but the means to manipulate the flow of energy of the people. If the energy is to flow freely, it must be without a source which allows the possibility of coveting. The use of money and it's concept as a feasible means to provide benefits to humanity must be erased from the people's minds. Everything is already in place for complex systems to flow. All that must be done is for the people to let go of the belief in ownership. Truly, we control nothing but the reactions to what we perceive to be experiencing. Truly, we merely are gifted with fleeting moments of borrowing. There is no ownership.

reply to post by SeekerofTruth101


The difference is that forced labour is slavery or indentured servitude. It has no place in a free society no matter what guise it may be under. In the past slavery was seen as a benefit to those it was forced upon so they could be made useful and someone could get free labour. Also in a free society doing labour against ones will is also forced labour. If you think even for a second it is a good idea to even start down this path your rewinding the past few hundred years worth of work to become the advanced society we are now with civil rights for all rather then the few.

Wikipedia on "Forced Labour"-

Unfree labour (or unfree labor in American English) is a generic or collective term for those work relations, especially in modern or early modern history, in which people are employed against their will by the threat of destitution, detention, violence (including death), or other extreme hardship to themselves, or to members of their families. Many of these forms of work may be covered by the term forced labour, although the latter term tends to imply forms based on violence. Unfree labour includes all forms of slavery, and related institutions (e.g. debt slavery, serfdom, and labour camps).

It is a slight against ourselves to be selfish in giving charity to others because of what it leads to in the end. If we are selfish to force others to work for the welfare they receive then we move into a serfdom ruled by the government through our tax dollars or "tithing" to corporate monarchy's. Don't fool yourselves into thinking your doing something good for someone else by forcing them to bid your will. It is ideas like that which have lead to tyrannical empires, fascism and every other kind of evil our world has met with.

reply to post by BigTimeCheater

Nothing about this idea is forced. They are free to stop receiving taxpayer funded checks at any time they wish.

Yes, but were they "free" to not pay into such scheme originally? These funds have already been provided by the collective labor of the individual. And now the individual must contribute labor again to receive the benefit of their own labor.

Furthermore, do you not see the glaring allure for ulterior motives here? If a Government gets the authority to compel labor in exchange for providing individuals daily bread and water when they become disenfranchised, how alluring would it be for a corporate sponsored government to not purposefully disenfranchise the people?

i have been talking to somebody today about this subject, and they said that travel expenses are provided to, so if we assume a person catches a bus to do this 'forced' labour, then where i live it costs either £3.20 return per day for a period of 4 weeks mon-fri which is 20 days, which £64 pounds or if they are provided with a bus pass it will cost £53 for a full month. so free travel for a month on tax payers money.

i am just mentioning this as somebody above said it will cost more than it already does, and with just taking travel expenses into account i have to agree. now if we pay £53 for just one month for lets say 50,000 people, that will be
2m 650,000

that is without any other expenses that will be claimed of tax payers money, uniform etc, employing extra staff to monitor it etc.

just pointing this out for peoples thoughts. does anybody know the actual long term unemployment figures for the u.k.?

i still think it would help people if done correctly but with the economy and all i am not sure if the extra cost is bad.

could they not just employ more people with that money rather than laying them off?

If the government are able to give the long term unemployed work then why do they need to claim benefits? Surely it would make more sense to just give them a job as in real work not forced labour?!

Sounds like complete Bs to me!

Some really interesting sides to this debate being posted so far.

I haven't had the time to post replies yet but will get on it shortly.

Blame late shifts! Didn't want anyone to think i buggered off somewhere.

As one poster said, remember that the working people who have worked for many years have all paid their share of income tax and national insurance, shouldn't that alone entitled you for benefits when you find yourself redundant after 20 years?

Many jobless have been made redundant and because of the economy even though they are highly skilled workers there just isn't jobs around to take up and the prospects are long term unemployment, does that mean they should have to take place in a forced labour program? Even when the government has been taking tax for years? I think not.

Back shortly.

~Concept

reply to post by Concept X


sounds like they have done this to us on purpose, wait until the peoples jobs go that think they are avoiding this mess by being in a job because they probably won't be employed soon and then they will be winging

I am heartened by the responses so far on 'forced' labour.

Many disapprove of 'forced' labour which is slavery in the guise of politically correct terms.

No labour can be slavery if the wages are sufficient for a person to live within reasonable means. Luxuries are supposed to be savings from earnings, but once one takes on loans, the servitude begins. Thus one should never live beyond their means, for the only constant in life is change, and no man knows what tommorow may bring.

Unfortunately, today's wages are insufficient for one to live even on a life sustainable level. Worse if he is compelled to slave it out for welfare checks of a few miserable pounds. Who ultimately benefits?

Not society that had funded to govts the taxes to help their fellow man, for it carries the stigma and guilt of making the poor and less opportune a miserable slave sweeping the streets.

Not the govt that came out with this idea of turning the poor into slaves, for being the elected, some of those sweepers may be their own constituents.

For laying the blame, just turn to the elites who lived in high classed suburbs. They pay next to nothing, for their wealth had been came off the back of the laid off masses by manipulating wages and profit unchecked. Their wealth is safe in hoarded cash in banks or private security vaults, used for gambling in the casino called stock markets which is skewered in favour of them, robbing the middle classes of their wealth through hard work over years, instead of creating real value to societies by opening up opportunities through realistic employment wage payments.

Man, thou art screwed and a slave. Accept the fact and be not the bootlicker of the rich anymore. Anytime, the axe will fall with you getting the short end of the stick. Either you courageously face reality or continue in fruitless hope of delusions. You were never meant to win. The odds are stacked against you.

Hang as one or be surely hunged one by one soon. A 1776 A.D. word of advice that holds true today......

Originally posted by harvib
reply to post by BigTimeCheater

 

Nothing about this idea is forced. They are free to stop receiving taxpayer funded checks at any time they wish.

Yes, but were they "free" to not pay into such scheme originally? These funds have already been provided by the collective labor of the individual. And now the individual must contribute labor again to receive the benefit of their own labor.

Furthermore, do you not see the glaring allure for ulterior motives here? If a Government gets the authority to compel labor in exchange for providing individuals daily bread and water when they become disenfranchised, how alluring would it be for a corporate sponsored government to not purposefully disenfranchise the people?

There is no proof they actually paid anything into the system.

Employees do not pay into an unemployment fund, and lets be honest here, chances are a very large portion of people on actual welfare (TANF, etc etc) havent actually paid any form of income tax. As we all know, simply having money withheld and receiving it in the form of a refund later isnt paying a tax. Receiving more than was withheld in the form of the Earned Income Credit certainly isnt paying any tax.

Of course having government provide bread and water is a horrible thing, fortunately only those who choose to subject themselves to it are the ones who must suffer the consequences.

Originally posted by BigTimeCheater

Originally posted by harvib
reply to post by BigTimeCheater

 

Of course having government provide bread and water is a horrible thing, fortunately only those who choose to subject themselves to it are the ones who must suffer the consequences.

Wow harsh judgment there Scrooge.

I suspect that quite a few of those you so freely condemn had no choice in the matter whatsoever.

May i be so rude as to suggest a little humility and fairplay to your fellow man.

One-day however confident you may feel now, that person collecting bread and water may be you.

You sound like you really despise these people, do you???

Cosmic...

I was bought up with the "if you dont work you dont eat" mantra.

Here in the UK we have whole housing estates and towns filled with people claiming benefits. It has become a way of life for many. There are way too many families with which we have two generations living together with none of them working a day in their lives or even attempt to get work. They get their money and spend it on booze and drugs and have the audacity to stick their fingers up to those of us who do work by commiting crimes. Some even get pregnant to get a house provided by the state (us) whilst we pick up the tab for the kids and everything else. In fact they have more kids to suppliment their income, give the a raise! Meanwhile the useless eaters who father these kids gets off scott free, picks up his free money and spends his days getting drunk and watching daytime tv.

Added to of this we have many immigrants bought here by labours open door policy who also require housing, publc services, free health care and education all bought and paid for by the mugged British taxpayer,

This is clearly unsustainable.

I have no problem with people who claim dole, want to work and make their full time job to get a job, but i do have a problem with the feckless chavs who have an entitlement attitude and have no intention getting work or even trying..

I am not paying for them to stay at home rent free and take the piss out of me whilst i slogg my guts out everyday..

They can bloody well earn their benefits! I have to pay for them so they can do something for them!

I applaude IDS for this. About time!

Now all they have to do is sort out the imnigration mess which will free up jobs for natural citizens.

reply to post by BigTimeCheater


You are missing the point. What you are advocating is giving an oligarch the authority to not only compel payment into a scheme that promises benefits to individuals when needed but then having the authority to force labor in order to receive those funds as promised.

The majority of you a so concerned about disenfranchised individuals getting more then they earned that you forget to question if the oligarch you are giving authority to is getting benefit of more then they have earned. Have you even asked if the "taxpayer" is going to receive benefit of this labor or do you just assume that serving the Government is synonymous with serving the people?

Furthermore have you stopped to consider that you are advocating giving an organization that is tasked with protecting the individual from disenfranchisement significant motivation to disenfranchise the individual. Yet you advocate such a conflict of interest?

Maybe the people wouldn't have to use the weapon in your your avatar if they used the weapon in their head.

reply to post by Beauty_HairyBeast

If the government are able to give the long term unemployed work then why do they need to claim benefits? Surely it would make more sense to just give them a job as in real work not forced labour?!

Sounds like complete Bs to me!

Yes it is. It is not that the unemployed are being forced to work, it is that the unemployed are being forced to work for their unemployment benefits. They are going to be obliged to work at third-world hourly pay rates. Where are the appropriate jobs at the appropriate hourly pay rates that the unions worked so hard for a hundred years to materialize? - In the Developing World (China, Mexico, India, Brazil etc). Not every person is a Jewish university trained professional whose job will never be threatened by overseas replacements. Some people are born as blue collar workers and enjoy working in factories and being part of a team of manual labourers who are the back-bone of any nation and they are happy to do so......for the right reward.

Originally posted by Golden Rule
reply to post by Beauty_HairyBeast

 

If the government are able to give the long term unemployed work then why do they need to claim benefits? Surely it would make more sense to just give them a job as in real work not forced labour?!

Sounds like complete Bs to me!

Yes it is. It is not that the unemployed are being forced to work, it is that the unemployed are being forced to work for their unemployment benefits. They are going to be obliged to work at third-world hourly pay rates. Where are the appropriate jobs at the appropriate hourly pay rates that the unions worked so hard for a hundred years to materialize? - In the Developing World (China, Mexico, India, Brazil etc). Not every person is a Jewish university trained professional whose job will never be threatened by overseas replacements. Some people are born as blue collar workers and enjoy working in factories and being part of a team of manual labourers who are the back-bone of any nation and they are happy to do so......for the right reward.

It will give them more incentive to get a proper job, or even get their own business going..

Being unemployed is soul destroying. Sitting at home and probably drinking the day away is not good. This will get people who have been unemployed long term back into the habit of work and build confidence..

Give me a good reason why tax payers should pay for people to doss around all day. They should accept any job going. Even if they are working with low wages i have no problem with my taxes supplimenting their wages for rent etc, but i do have a problem if they dont or wont work, or even attempt to look for it.

I was bought up with you dont work or you dont eat attitude because my dad decided to "rebel against the state" which was his excuse for being a lazy bastard which forced me from the age of 13 to work two jobs to eat and by clothes then join the army at 16 to get away.. Unfortunately a lot of people on the dole have the same stance. Those people will make me laugh when they are picking up litter outside my house which i will restock regular to keep them in work and hopefully make them get a proper job.

reply to post by Cosmic4life


While I do feel bad for those who ran into hard times, I am a firm believer in the fact that the social program scam known as "public assistance" is 100% unconstitutional, and needs to be eliminated. There are other ways of helping people.

That being said, I do have a strong hatred for those who make relying on government handouts a lifestyle, and not a temporary helping hand.

Originally posted by harvib


You are missing the point. What you are advocating is giving an oligarch the authority to not only compel payment into a scheme that promises benefits to individuals when needed but then having the authority to force labor in order to receive those funds as promised.

Considering there is no right to public funds, especially given that the Constitution doesnt authorize it, there cannot be a promise. Hypothetically, there are stipulations on everything. Working to earn a taxpayer funded check certainly makes sense.

Have you even asked if the "taxpayer" is going to receive benefit of this labor or do you just assume that serving the Government is synonymous with serving the people?

I never assume. That being said, if people were forced to pick up trash along the highway, or other community service oriented tasks in return for an unconstitutional redistribution of wealth check, the taxpayer would realize a benefit from it.

Furthermore have you stopped to consider that you are advocating giving an organization that is tasked with protecting the individual from disenfranchisement significant motivation to disenfranchise the individual. Yet you advocate such a conflict of interest?

Given that there is no right to a job, no one would be disenfranchised. Creating jobs is not a function of government, there would be no motivation to keep people unemployed since employed people contribute more than unemployed people.

Maybe the people wouldn't have to use the weapon in your your avatar if they used the weapon in their head.

There are times when the weapon pictured in my avatar is more effective. We are rapidly approaching those times.

reply to post by BigTimeCheater

Working to earn a taxpayer funded check certainly makes sense.

To who? That check has already been worked and payed for. It has already been earned by the collective labor of the people. And now the oligarch that forced labor in order to create the "social program" in the first place wants to force labor in order to give out the benefits.

This might make sense to the general populace if the labor was being provided directly to and for the "taxpayer" in order to repay the "taxpayer" directly but is that the case? Will I ever see the funds I have been forced to contribute? Maybe you believe that laboring for your Government is the same as laboring for the "taxpayer, if that is the case I won't try and change your mind.

if people were forced to pick up trash along the highway, or other community service oriented tasks in return for an unconstitutional redistribution of wealth check, the taxpayer would realize a benefit from it.

So you believe these social services to be unconstitutional? Yet you seem to support the same organization that forces individuals to pay into the unconstitutional scheme to have the authority to force labor on those who need to collect on those services?

I would think that a person that believed funds were being collected illegally would be opposed to any impediments in individuals retrieving those funds.

there would be no motivation to keep people unemployed since employed people contribute more than unemployed people.

Contribute more to who? A person who can be forced to labor for pennies on the dollar will much more of a "contribution" to those that have the "authority" to force that labor as opposed to having to pay fair wages for such services. If you were part of an organization that had the ability to force cheap labor or have to pay significantly more for such labor which would you choose?

That is the motivation and the conflict of interest.

There are times when the weapon pictured in my avatar is more effective. We are rapidly approaching those times.

If that is the case it is only because people are so easily manipulated and have allowed themselves to be corralled into dire straights. And if the people ever pick up arms it will be against each other. This debate is case and point. You have declared the actions of the oligarch as "unconstitutional" yet you are more concerned with those that live in poverty on the backs of the general populace as opposed to those that live in luxury off the backs of the general populace. I guess i just don't grasp your wisdom.

Originally posted by harvib

To who? That check has already been worked and payed for. It has already been earned by the collective labor of the people. And now the oligarch that forced labor in order to create the "social program" in the first place wants to force labor in order to give out the benefits.

it's been paid for? By who? Surely you arent suggesting everyone on public assistance has actually contributed to the income tax are you?

This might make sense to the general populace if the labor was being provided directly to and for the "taxpayer" in order to repay the "taxpayer" directly but is that the case? Will I ever see the funds I have been forced to contribute?

You and I will never see the funds that have been taken from us. Not ever.

Isn't it better to at least try to realize some sort of gain out of the theft other than just letting the criminals in DC hand it over to others who didnt pay?

So you believe these social services to be unconstitutional?

It's not just me who believes them to be unconstitutional, I go by the words of the people who actually wrote the Constitution.

Yet you seem to support the same organization that forces individuals to pay into the unconstitutional scheme to have the authority to force labor on those who need to collect on those services?

Opposing unconstitutional income redistribution doesnt mean I automatically support the theft perpetrated by the federal government.

I would think that a person that believed funds were being collected illegally would be opposed to any impediments in individuals retrieving those funds.

If the individuals attempting to collect them didnt own said funds in the first place, that too is theft, and is no different from the government taking those funds from us.

Contribute more to who?

To the economy.

If that is the case it is only because people are so easily manipulated and have allowed themselves to be corralled into dire straights. And if the people ever pick up arms it will be against each other. This debate is case and point. You have declared the actions of the oligarch as "unconstitutional" yet you are more concerned with those that live in poverty on the backs of the general populace as opposed to those that live in luxury off the backs of the general populace. I guess i just don't grasp your wisdom.

It can be summed up in one simple phrase.

A parasite is just as bad as a cancer.

Sounds like they are about to stop lying about things,and burst the make believe you're free bubble.

Things are sliding backwards again.

The Old World Order.

Coming to the U.S. soon,cuz it's just a british colony anyway........

A very dangerous step backwards indeed!,and how many generations of debt will they work to pay off the debts the governments have run up?.

I mean,like where does it stop,once it starts?,how much debt has been accrued by the government against the labor of people who are yet to be born?.

reply to post by BigTimeCheater

it's been paid for? By who?

Originally posted by harvib

That check has already been worked and payed for. It has already been earned by the collective labor of the people...

Isn't it better to at least try to realize some sort of gain out of the theft other than just letting the criminals in DC hand it over to others who didnt pay?

By further exploiting members of the same society being exploited in the first place? You believe that a "theft" is taking place yet you seem more concerned with the poverty stricken getting more then they deserve through handouts then with thieves getting more then they deserve through extortion, fraud, and threats of violence. Furthermore you wish to actually strengthen the thieves ability to steal, extort, and exploit?

Opposing unconstitutional income redistribution doesnt mean I automatically support the theft perpetrated by the federal government.

Yet you seem to support or at least advocate giving additional authorities to such an organization. You also seem to have no concern that an organization perpetrating "theft" would now have additional motivation to disenfranchise the individual.

To the economy.

Let's not forget that slave labor has built empires. I know you don't believe this to be synonymous with slavery however the point remains the same.

A parasite is just as bad as a cancer.

Not when the cancer is terminal and the parasite only causes jock itch...