Search forums

Forums

Export thread

Franklin Delano Roosevelt's Second Bill of rights

Oct 5, 2009#1

Le Quack

FDR is considered one of the best presidents of our time, and this is what he had planned.

Oct 5, 2009#2

Covar

transcript for those of us at work, who forgot their headphones please.

Oct 5, 2009#3

Le Quack

http://www.worldpolicy.org/projects/globalrights/econrights/fdr-econbill.html

Oct 5, 2009#4

Kitty Sinatra

Well, that's one more vote for Health Care as a right.

Dammit, why do I keep crossing threads? :laser:

Oct 5, 2009#5

Shakey

Is that supposed to be a bad thing?

Oct 5, 2009#6

Le Quack

No, but FDR totally called republican's fascists.

Oct 5, 2009#7

Espy

Wow, some of those are really ridiculous.

Not as ideas mind you, they are all things we would want, but for the government to provide? Yeesh.

Oct 5, 2009#8

Shakey

I'm sure republicans everywhere are heartbroken.

I don't really see where he called them fascist though.

Oct 5, 2009#9

Kitty Sinatra

eh, espy? I don't see anything ridiculous (in the text link, didn't watch the video) there, especially given that this is a speech and a little hyperbole is alway present. What do you find ridiculous?

Oct 5, 2009#10

Armadillo

Bill of Rights-enumerates what the government cannot do to its citizens and what it cannot take away. Things like free speech, right to bear arms, freedom from unlawful search and seizure, right to not self-incriminate, and so on. Increases freedom and self-determination.

This "Bill of Rights"- things the government would provide its citizens, essentially making them more dependent on the state for their happiness and well-being. Decreases freedom and self-determination.

FDR isn't universally thought of as one of the best Presidents we've ever had. Quite a few people think he was one of the worst, actually.

Oct 5, 2009#11

Covar

JUST BECAUSE SOMETHING IS A RIGHT DOES NOT MEAN YOU MUST BE PROVIDED WITH IT!!! :frusty:

by that logic, churches must be allowed to place the nativity scene on the front lawn of City Hall at Christmas time.

Oct 5, 2009#12

Shakey

If you take "rights" as something the government must provide for you, than it seems pretty over the top for me. For me it is more the protection of our ability to achieve it.

For example, "The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation;". I don't see that as saying the government must make sure we all have a job, just that we should all have the right to be able to secure a job. That we shouldn't be discriminated against for any reason. Not that the government should provide a job for us.

Oct 5, 2009#13

Kitty Sinatra

Shakey said:
If you take "rights" as something the government must provide for you, than it seems pretty over the top for me.

Same here. And I saw no hint of that definition in those points (excepting health care, but that's personal, national bias here).

I saw the suggestion for a need for sufficient regulation to help provide those "rights" - things like anti-monopoly laws, minimum wage laws, and things like that.

Oct 5, 2009#14

Le Quack

Just because we have the right to freedom of speech, doesn't mean we must be provided with it.

Oct 5, 2009#15

Shakey

Le Quack said:
Just because we have the right to freedom of speech, doesn't mean we must be provided with it.

How about:
Just because we have the right to freedom of speech, doesn't mean the government must provide us a podium to speak our mind from.

Oct 5, 2009#16

Le Quack

The text document doesn't say all of his speech. If you listen to it, there's a bit more that goes into it.

---------- Post added at 06:31 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:23 PM ----------

Im not sure why the transcript cuts off the last few minutes of the speech. But he talks about "right reactionaries" and giving into the spirit of fascism.

Oct 5, 2009#17

Shakey

I can't watch it now, but I found what is maybe the full version. http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=16518

---------- Post added at 01:37 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:33 PM ----------

Do you mean:

One of the great American industrialists of our day—a man who has rendered yeoman service to his country in this crisis-recently emphasized the grave dangers of \"rightist reaction\" in this Nation. All clear-thinking businessmen share his concern. Indeed, if such reaction should develop—if history were to repeat itself and we were to return to the so-called \"normalcy\" of the 1920's—then it is certain that even though we shall have conquered our enemies on the battlefields abroad, we shall have yielded to the spirit of Fascism here at home.

He's calling people who want to go back to the ideals of the 20's fascists, not republicans. Ideals change over time, I don't know any republicans that think going back to the way businesses were run and employees were treated in the 20's is a good thing.

Oct 5, 2009#18

Le Quack

FDR said:
America's own rightful place in the world depends in large part upon how fully these and similar rights have been carried into practice for our citizens. For unless there is security here at home there cannot be lasting peace in the world.

One of the great American industrialists of our day—a man who has rendered yeoman service to his country in this crisis-recently emphasized the grave dangers of "rightist reaction" in this Nation. All clear-thinking businessmen share his concern. Indeed, if such reaction should develop—if history were to repeat itself and we were to return to the so-called "normalcy" of the 1920's—then it is certain that even though we shall have conquered our enemies on the battlefields abroad, we shall have yielded to the spirit of Fascism here at home.

I ask the Congress to explore the means for implementing this economic bill of rights- for it is definitely the responsibility of the Congress so to do. Many of these problems are already before committees of the Congress in the form of proposed legislation. I shall from time to time communicate with the Congress with respect to these and further proposals. In the event that no adequate program of progress is evolved, I am certain that the Nation will be conscious of the fact.

Check it

Oct 5, 2009#19

Kitty Sinatra

Well given that the speech was made during WWII and fascism was a sort of legitimate political philosophy at the time with proponents in the US, I'm not surprised he'd mention something like that. It's not significantly different than if Obama would caution against giving into religious Fundamentalism, or Bush cautioning against Liberalism, or any other example you can give about presidents mentioning a bogeyman to help shore up their own position.

Oct 5, 2009#20

Le Quack

He's saying that it is a danger of "rightist recationaries."
Also, he asks the Congress to explore the means of the economic bill of rights.

I'm of the understanding that these were rights already available, and thus must be meaning the means to make them available.
If that doesn't mean "provide a means" to make the rights available, my bad.

Oct 5, 2009#21

Kitty Sinatra

I'm not sure what we're discussing here, but I'm gonna reply anyway.

I don't see why "provide a means" should mean "have the government provide these directly" (like Covar seems to believe) as opposed to "have the government create the conditions."

Things like minimum wage laws, anti-monopoly laws do the latter. Those may have indeed been in place before this speech, but that makes sense too as in his speech FDR talks about not just what's planned, but what's come before his speech and what's happening currently (FDR mentions legislation passing through Congress right then).

But all this is secondary from what I don't understand here: Is the whole thing ridiculous because he refers to them as "rights"? Is that one single word really getting your craw up? (By "you", I mean whoever has their craw up; I don't know who or what I'm actually talking to or about here)

Oct 5, 2009#22

Shakey

It's been 60 years since that speech. "Rightist reactionaries" means something completely different now.

As for asking for the means to implement it, he just wants to secure those right through legislation. Minimum wage, anti-discrimination laws, worker safety laws, actually breaking up monopolies, unemployment benefits, all of those are implementations on those ideals.

Oct 5, 2009#23

sixpackshaker

This speech was the basis of the minimum wage, agricultural price supports, and a renewed interest in breaking the monopolistic competition that is against the ideals of capitalism and freedom. They acted on several of those points in the past. And the Democratic party has continued to push for reforms along those lines.

Oct 5, 2009#24

The Lovely Boehner

Armadillo said:
Quite a few people think he was one of the worst, actually.

The only people I've ever heard say this are foaming-at-the-mouth neocons and libertarians.

Oct 5, 2009#25

Rob King

Le Quack said:
Just because we have the right to freedom of speech, doesn't mean we must be provided with it.

"People demand freedom of speech to make up for the freedom of thought, which they avoid"

Oct 5, 2009#26

Le Quack

Rob King;269374][quote=Le Quack said:
Just because we have the right to freedom of speech, doesn't mean we must be provided with it.

"People demand freedom of speech to make up for the freedom of thought, which they avoid"[/QUOTE]

"You're a dumb prick"

I can do it too.

Oct 5, 2009#27

Rob King

Le Quack;269382][quote=Rob King;269374][quote=Le Quack said:
Just because we have the right to freedom of speech, doesn't mean we must be provided with it.

"People demand freedom of speech to make up for the freedom of thought, which they avoid"[/QUOTE]

"You're a dumb prick"

I can do it too.[/QUOTE]

You know, quoting a person doesn't necessarily mean you're talking to/about them. The only guarantee is that it relates to what they've said.

I had hoped you'd have something to say about the line. Sorry I hurt your feelings. :rolleyes:

Oct 5, 2009#28

Le Quack

Rob King;269385][quote=Le Quack;269382][quote=Rob King;269374][quote=Le Quack said:
Just because we have the right to freedom of speech, doesn't mean we must be provided with it.

[/QUOTE]

Well, I took it as a personal insult. If that was not the case, my bad.
When I think of the word right, I think that nothing can stop a person from getting that.

Not this its a right if you have the money to buy it, or It's a right if you say what we want you to say.

Right now, that is my opinion on Health Care. Because it is not widely available to everyone (aside from ER), then it is a broach of rights.

Oct 5, 2009#29

Shakey

Taking FDR's speech and trying to apply it to today's environment doesn't work very well though. There were different issues at that time which led to the ideas in that speech.

Oct 5, 2009#30

Rob King

Le Quack;269401Well said:
No worries. Sorry it was that ambiguous.

I think when it comes to freedom of speech, though, we've already talked that one to death. You do have the right to say whatever the hell you want. You can write it down, speak it verbally, or any other number of things. But having the right to say it doesn't mean the government is obligated to broadcast it.

We've also talked healthcare to death. As I understand it, as an American, you do have the right to medical service, but that doesn't mean you get it for free. Even here in Canada, it's not free, we pay for it in our taxes.

Oct 5, 2009#31

Espy

Gruebeard said:
eh, espy? I don't see anything ridiculous (in the text link, didn't watch the video) there, especially given that this is a speech and a little hyperbole is alway present. What do you find ridiculous?

He's saying you have a right to, among other ridiculous things, a job, clothes, recreation, etc.

It's like every bad campaign promise ever made.

Like I said in my post, I think you missed it, these aren't "bad things" but they are hardly things the government should provide for you.

---------- Post added at 03:39 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:36 PM ----------

Le Quack said:
Right now, that is my opinion on Health Care. Because it is not widely available to everyone (aside from ER), then it is a broach of rights.

Excuse me? Anyone can go see a doc. Is your real issue that people don't currently have the right to have someone else pay for their healthcare? The real issue as far as I'm concerned isn't the availability of healthcare, because it IS available to everyone, is the waste in the system, the costs driven up by insurance, etc. If we could streamline the system, if we could get tort reform in and make healthcare more affordable, then BAM! You have my support.

Oct 5, 2009#32

Shakey

Espy said:
He's saying you have a right to, among other ridiculous things, a job, clothes, recreation, etc.

It's like every bad campaign promise ever made.

Like I said in my post, I think you missed it, these aren't "bad things" but they are hardly things the government should provide for you.

That's not really taking into account what was going on.

Minimum wage and overtime laws had just been passed in 1938. Health insurance had really just started to be offered. Previously it was either a pre-pay plan or you pay it all out of pocket. Social security was started in 1935.

It was 1944 and there were people that wanted to undo these changes. This speech was pushing back against those that wanted to go back to the way it was, rather than a call for government giving you jobs and houses. It was a reminder that if we want to continue to grow we need to make sure the working class is not taken advantage of.

Oct 5, 2009#33

strawman

A reading of the speech doesn't seem to indicate that he was calling for these rights to be enshrined in the same way the bill of rights are, as constitutional amendments.

At best I believe he was calling for us, as a nation, and as human beings, to continue to move toward these goals. Not calling for a national mandate that these become law.

Compare them to other 'rights' speeches, such as MLK.

-Adam

Oct 5, 2009#34

Espy

Shakey;269513][quote=Espy said:
He's saying you have a right to, among other ridiculous things, a job, clothes, recreation, etc.

It's like every bad campaign promise ever made.

Like I said in my post, I think you missed it, these aren't "bad things" but they are hardly things the government should provide for you.

Oct 5, 2009#35

Armadillo

Charlie Dont Surf;269373][quote=Armadillo said:
Quite a few people think he was one of the worst, actually.

The only people I've ever heard say this are foaming-at-the-mouth neocons and libertarians.[/QUOTE]

...which makes sense, if you think about it. Libertarians are for as little state involvement in daily life and business as humanly possible, something FDR most certainly WASN'T all about. Therefore, it stands to reason that libertarians wouldn't be too fond of Roosevelt, just as we're not too fond of the current administration (or the last one, or the one before that, or...)

Oct 5, 2009#36

The Lovely Boehner

There are not "quite a few" libertarians.

Oct 5, 2009#37

blotsfan

Charlie Dont Surf;269373][quote=Armadillo said:
Quite a few people think he was one of the worst, actually.

The only people I've ever heard say this are foaming-at-the-mouth neocons and libertarians.[/QUOTE]
And the Jews who resent the whole "knowing about the holocaust and not giving a shit" thing.

Oct 5, 2009#38

Shakey

blotsfan;269651][quote=Charlie Dont Surf;269373][quote=Armadillo said:
Quite a few people think he was one of the worst, actually.

Oct 5, 2009#39

Armadillo

Shakey;269653][quote=blotsfan;269651][quote=Charlie Dont Surf;269373][quote=Armadillo said:
Quite a few people think he was one of the worst, actually.

Oct 5, 2009#40

Espy

Armadillo;269681][quote=Shakey;269653][quote=blotsfan;269651][quote=Charlie Dont Surf;269373][quote=Armadillo said:
Quite a few people think he was one of the worst, actually.

Oct 5, 2009#41

BoringMetaphor

Espy;269694][quote=Armadillo;269681][quote=Shakey;269653][quote=blotsfan;269651][quote=Charlie Dont Surf;269373][quote=Armadillo said:
Quite a few people think he was one of the worst, actually.

Oct 5, 2009#42

Armadillo

BoringMetaphor;269697][quote=Espy;269694][quote=Armadillo;269681][quote=Shakey;269653][quote=blotsfan;269651][quote=Charlie Dont Surf;269373][quote=Armadillo said:
Quite a few people think he was one of the worst, actually.

The only people I've ever heard say this are foaming-at-the-mouth neocons and libertarians.[/quote]
And the Jews who resent the whole "knowing about the holocaust and not giving a shit" thing.[/QUOTE]

And all those Japanese-Americans put into internment camps.[/QUOTE]

And Russians who were affected negatively by an emboldened Stalin.[/QUOTE]

I don't really have anything here, I just wanted to get in on the Roosie hate pyramid.[/QUOTE]

yay me too

And the Allies who fought alone against Hitler before December 1941.

And people in wheelchairs for raising the bar so high.

And poor people for ruining their way of life.

this is super fun[/QUOTE]

Don't forget about Presidents who couldn't do the "three letters nickname" thing. Obvious exceptions: JFK, LBJ.

Oct 5, 2009#43

SpecialKO

Armadillo;269726][quote=BoringMetaphor;269697][quote=Espy;269694][quote=Armadillo;269681][quote=Shakey;269653][quote=blotsfan;269651][quote=Charlie Dont Surf;269373][quote=Armadillo said:
Quite a few people think he was one of the worst, actually.

Oct 5, 2009#44

BoringMetaphor

I always thought JAG never got his due in that regard.

Oct 5, 2009#45

Shakey

TeKeo;269736][quote=Armadillo;269726][quote=BoringMetaphor;269697][quote=Espy;269694][quote=Armadillo;269681][quote=Shakey;269653][quote=blotsfan;269651][quote=Charlie Dont Surf;269373][quote=Armadillo said:
Quite a few people think he was one of the worst, actually.

The only people I've ever heard say this are foaming-at-the-mouth neocons and libertarians.[/quote]
And the Jews who resent the whole "knowing about the holocaust and not giving a shit" thing.[/quote]

And all those Japanese-Americans put into internment camps.[/quote]

And Russians who were affected negatively by an emboldened Stalin.[/quote]

I don't really have anything here, I just wanted to get in on the Roosie hate pyramid.[/quote]

yay me too

And the Allies who fought alone against Hitler before December 1941.

And people in wheelchairs for raising the bar so high.

And poor people for ruining their way of life.

this is super fun[/quote]

Don't forget about Presidents who couldn't do the "three letters nickname" thing. Obvious exceptions: JFK, LBJ.[/quote]

Or all the Presidents who weren't able to play the handicapped card and coast into office.[/QUOTE]

And all those people who thought there was still a quote pyramid limit.

Oct 5, 2009#46

Kitty Sinatra

Espy;269459][quote=Gruebeard said:
eh, espy? I don't see anything ridiculous (in the text link, didn't watch the video) there, especially given that this is a speech and a little hyperbole is alway present. What do you find ridiculous?

He's saying you have a right to, among other ridiculous things, a job, clothes, recreation, etc.

Like I said in my post, I think you missed it, these aren't "bad things" but they are hardly things the government should provide for you.[/QUOTE]
But the government does provide for those things. The minimum wage laws are in place so that employers pay what's supposed to amount to a living wage (or close to it) so that one can afford clothes and food. There are also laws regulating the maximum number of hours an employer can make one work, providing that recreation time (if one chooses to have it instead of taking a second job).

The "right to a job" thing, I don't quite get but from the context of the speech - and what came after all the way up till now - it seems like he's just talking about government setting up policies that keep the American economy running.

Oct 6, 2009#47

Shakey

Gruebeard;269781][quote=Espy;269459][quote=Gruebeard said:
eh, espy? I don't see anything ridiculous (in the text link, didn't watch the video) there, especially given that this is a speech and a little hyperbole is alway present. What do you find ridiculous?

He's saying you have a right to, among other ridiculous things, a job, clothes, recreation, etc.

Like I said in my post, I think you missed it, these aren't "bad things" but they are hardly things the government should provide for you.[/quote]
But the government does provide for those things. The minimum wage laws are in place so that employers pay what's supposed to amount to a living wage (or close to it) so that one can afford clothes and food. There are also laws regulating the maximum number of hours an employer can make one work, providing that recreation time (if one chooses to have it instead of taking a second job).

The "right to a job" thing, I don't quite get but from the context of the speech - and what came after all the way up till now - it seems like he's just talking about government setting up policies that keep the American economy running.[/QUOTE]

The "right to a job" to me was more about allowing equal opportunity to get a job. Like I said, take it in context to the time period.

There is a clarification to the quote FDR said in the first link about the speech.

“Necessitous men,” says the Lord Chancellor, in Vernon v Bethell, 2 Eden 113 (1762), “are not, truly speaking, free men; but, to answer a present emergency, will submit to any terms that the crafty may impose on them.”

That says a lot about what FDR was looking for.

Oct 7, 2009#48

drawn_inward

The devaluing of the dollar by nationalizing gold is a big beef I have FDR. I also don't care for his so-called temporary New Deal programs that are insanely bloated today. And, yes, I am a foaming at the mouth conservative, Chuck.

Oct 8, 2009#49

Krisken

drawn_inward said:
The devaluing of the dollar by nationalizing gold is a big beef I have FDR. I also don't care for his so-called temporary New Deal programs that are insanely bloated today. And, yes, I am a foaming at the mouth conservative, Chuck.

I'd offer you a tissue to wipe that away, but you'd probably expect me to compete for your business.

Oct 8, 2009#50

Iaculus

drawn_inward said:
The devaluing of the dollar by nationalizing gold is a big beef I have FDR. I also don't care for his so-called temporary New Deal programs that are insanely bloated today. And, yes, I am a foaming at the mouth conservative, Chuck.

Well, he's been dead since '45. You can't really blame him for what happened to said programs since then.

Forums