I'm a little short on time this week, but I wanted to say the idea of differentiating between work and a job is one I've given a lot of thought to over the years. Some folks will differentiate them by defining 'work' as a ministry, life-calling, or life mission, as opposed to a job that you take to 'just pay the bills'.
I kind of think your high school response was actually more spot on. Reason being, in a nation like the U.S. where there is really LESS freedom than in other countries where the governments are small and unable to exert the control that is done here, there's not such thing as the 'right to work'. For example, let's say you're ready to ditch the 9-5 corporate rat race job and create your own 'work'. In a rural area in some far away land where there is no local or regional control, you'll be more or less free to do your thing. In the U.S. You will soon realize that your 'work' is highly regulated by the U.S. and State, and even local governments. Want to renovate an old jalopy and sell homemade gelato to sweaty construction workers on your street in the summer? Can't do it without the truck passing inspection, getting a venders license, passing a food safety certification course, paying taxes and fees, and probably about 5 other items could be added to your 'right to work' concept. It doesn't matter if the guys are willing to buy your gelato and take their chances on the food safety. The gov. controls the entire gameboard. In an ideal world, we have a natural right to work; in this one. not so much. We have the right to do what the gov says we have the right to do, the way the gov says we have the right to do it.
> > > The gov. controls the entire gameboard. In an ideal world, we have a natural right to work; in this one. not so much. We have the right to do what the gov says we have the right to do, the way the gov says we have the right to do it.
That's why good neighbors are, unavoidably, bad citizens :-)
I've done freelance illustration/design for about 13 years now. I regularly tell people that I've willingly traded stability for freedom/flexibility. Feast-and-famine is a real thing, but I never have to worry about "losing my job" since I've been able to develop multiple streams of revenue out of necessity.
There is definitely no right to a job for me since I'd have to say that everyone I'm competing against also has a right to the same jobs and we can't all have them. However, one of my revenue streams is through unionization in the film industry. Curious what you think of unions which limits the potential competition.
Side note - you might be interested to know that one of my current clients is The Cato Institute :)
Great to hear you understand the trade-offs and are succeeding!
As for labor unions . . . is the union consent-based and voluntary? The problem with unionization is the problem of any cronyism/rent-seeking: the sought-after connection to government. Public-sector unions, for instance, are always a problem because they're *public-sector* arrangements, not necessarily because they represent multiple people.
I'm vaguely familiar with the Cato Institute. What projects have you done for them, if you can divulge that information?
I definitely feel protected and empowered by my union. The creative industries are often used and abused by people who expect to pay very little for creative output so it's nice to have strong support in pay negotiations. I don't feel like it's rent-seeking at all. The dues I pay seem well worth it.
For Cato, I'm currently working on a series of short comic books that analyze some of the cases being seen by the supreme Court this year. It'll be published by them as The Illustrated Supreme Court Review later this year. It's been incredibly eye-opening for someone like myself who doesn't have a law background.
I really like how your mind works, Domenic. Happy May Day!
Thanks, Bryan! I like how your mind works, too.
I'm a little short on time this week, but I wanted to say the idea of differentiating between work and a job is one I've given a lot of thought to over the years. Some folks will differentiate them by defining 'work' as a ministry, life-calling, or life mission, as opposed to a job that you take to 'just pay the bills'.
I kind of think your high school response was actually more spot on. Reason being, in a nation like the U.S. where there is really LESS freedom than in other countries where the governments are small and unable to exert the control that is done here, there's not such thing as the 'right to work'. For example, let's say you're ready to ditch the 9-5 corporate rat race job and create your own 'work'. In a rural area in some far away land where there is no local or regional control, you'll be more or less free to do your thing. In the U.S. You will soon realize that your 'work' is highly regulated by the U.S. and State, and even local governments. Want to renovate an old jalopy and sell homemade gelato to sweaty construction workers on your street in the summer? Can't do it without the truck passing inspection, getting a venders license, passing a food safety certification course, paying taxes and fees, and probably about 5 other items could be added to your 'right to work' concept. It doesn't matter if the guys are willing to buy your gelato and take their chances on the food safety. The gov. controls the entire gameboard. In an ideal world, we have a natural right to work; in this one. not so much. We have the right to do what the gov says we have the right to do, the way the gov says we have the right to do it.
> > > The gov. controls the entire gameboard. In an ideal world, we have a natural right to work; in this one. not so much. We have the right to do what the gov says we have the right to do, the way the gov says we have the right to do it.
That's why good neighbors are, unavoidably, bad citizens :-)
I've done freelance illustration/design for about 13 years now. I regularly tell people that I've willingly traded stability for freedom/flexibility. Feast-and-famine is a real thing, but I never have to worry about "losing my job" since I've been able to develop multiple streams of revenue out of necessity.
There is definitely no right to a job for me since I'd have to say that everyone I'm competing against also has a right to the same jobs and we can't all have them. However, one of my revenue streams is through unionization in the film industry. Curious what you think of unions which limits the potential competition.
Side note - you might be interested to know that one of my current clients is The Cato Institute :)
Great to hear you understand the trade-offs and are succeeding!
As for labor unions . . . is the union consent-based and voluntary? The problem with unionization is the problem of any cronyism/rent-seeking: the sought-after connection to government. Public-sector unions, for instance, are always a problem because they're *public-sector* arrangements, not necessarily because they represent multiple people.
I'm vaguely familiar with the Cato Institute. What projects have you done for them, if you can divulge that information?
I definitely feel protected and empowered by my union. The creative industries are often used and abused by people who expect to pay very little for creative output so it's nice to have strong support in pay negotiations. I don't feel like it's rent-seeking at all. The dues I pay seem well worth it.
For Cato, I'm currently working on a series of short comic books that analyze some of the cases being seen by the supreme Court this year. It'll be published by them as The Illustrated Supreme Court Review later this year. It's been incredibly eye-opening for someone like myself who doesn't have a law background.
There's a joke somewhere in there about the legal system being cartoonish :-D
Subtext 😂