Posted: 09 Dec 2015, 14:14
maybe it is a translation issue - and i'm just arguing semantics here.kbdfr wrote: This whole discussion rests on a fundamental misunderstanding of the word "right" in its legal sense.
A "right" is not something you are entitled to, but something nobody can deny you.
So having a constitutional "right to a job" doesn't mean that anybody is obliged to actually provide you with a job,
but that no law can prohibit you from taking up a job.
I think this becomes even more obvious if you consider the right to marry
right to marry:right to have a marriage::right to work:right to have a job
but obviously i know what you mean and i agree with you
