[fourdeuce82d]

From Treanor's site:

Fourth, and most important politically: the moral basis of social security payments should be redefined. Payment to the unemployed should be defined as compensation, for injustice and discrimination. In principle, an employer who refuses a job applicant, should compensate the applicant for loss of wages. The State can then take over this obligation, in the form of a fund for unemployment -open to anyone who has ever been refused a job.

True, this is a redefinition of the existing system. But it removes the pseudo-ethical claim, that the unemployed have an obligation to the employed. It is the other way round: those with jobs are guilty - guilty of competition for jobs. The free labour market is not a voluntary competition, like a marathon race. It is a race, created by the winners, to provide an opportunity to win. Any free market system is only morally acceptable, if participants can withdraw: and in reality they never can withdraw.

thoughts?

[Exnihilo]

I disagree with those statements, although I can see where he arrives at his conclusion. It may seem to many people that they cannot withdraw from the 'race' of the free market, because they must survive and to do so one must have a job and consume goods. On the other hand, one could retreat into the woods build a cabin and live off the land. I really find it hilarious that I am some how obligated to agree with everything the author says simply because I post something written by him that I happen to agree with on a few points. This kind of logic amazes me.