Ok why?
-
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
-
-
-
David Lewis of the NDP in the 1970s mused about working-class people having 'ownership' of their job, every bit as meaningful as capitalists owning property (likely moreso) This is pretty standard democratic socialist thought
-
ownership of their job and "right to employment" are completely different even serfs had a "jobs guarantee" so nobody is going to take that away, unless they take away your "right to pay rent" first
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
It's crazy talk in the sense that there is no plausible originalist reading of the "privileges and immunities" clause that would confer a right to employment on Americans.
-
You could read the general welfare statement in the U.S. Constitution as a justification for declaring a right to employment. This has nothing to do with originalism - which is basically a guise for justifying the nation's White Supremacist framework and anti-democratic rule.
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
Its also in the constitution of other countries, and it is seen as aspirational (but all rights are aspirational, none of them are upheld 100%).
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
It’s crazy talk if you are claiming that a court might agree with that interpretation.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.