How many of you believe in the Economic Bill of Rights?

[Deudalus]

Hello,

I tend to listen the the gambit of political talk radio throughout the day often jumping from Sirius Patriot over to Sirius Left on a whim.

Yesterday while switching through I heard Alex Bennett talking about the "Economic Bill of Rights" proposed by FDR and how much more wealthy and prosperous we would be as a nation of we would have gone that route.

I'm wondering how many of you think he is right?

For those of you unfamiliar with the economic bill of rights here it is below:

http://www.ushistory.org/documents/economic_bill_of_rights.htm

In our day these economic truths have become accepted as self-evident. We have accepted, so to speak, a second Bill of Rights under which a new basis of security and prosperity can be established for all — regardless of station, race, or creed.

Among these are:

* The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation;

* The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;

* The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;

* The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;

* The right of every family to a decent home;

* The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;

* The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;

* The right to a good education.

I'm very up in the air about the entire thing to be honest with you.

While I don't have a problem with anyone getting any of those things and in a perfect world everyone would have them. I'm not sure how anyone can provide those things to all.

The right to a good education I'm OK with K-12 of course. I don't understand how we can guarantee someone a good house, a good job, and tons of other things.

 

[piasabird]

I believe in free trade. Farmers need to grow what will sell. Maybe we have too many farmers. A while back the government bought out a lot of Dairies and slaughtered the dairy cows to increase the price of milk. Now poor people can not afford to buy milk.

One problem is that for every action the government takes there will be repercussions. If the price for American farm products is too high, then the US will just import more produce and food goods from overseas. Have you noticed that a lot of products at the grocery store come from south of our border?

We could stop importing food but you will just pay more at the grocery store. This is simple economics. What exactly is your plan to increase what Farmers earn?

There is no such thing as an Economic Bill of Rights. There is this thing called Free Trade. It makes food cost less. If you really want farmers to earn more maybe we need to put some of the farmers out of work. The shorter supply will push up costs. Just keep in mind we live in a world economy. Maybe farmers are already earning too much.

 

[Deudalus]

A while back the government bought out a lot of Dairies and slaughtered the dairy cows to increase the price of milk. Now poor people can not afford to buy milk.

Isn't that ironic too?

The government pays my parents 5,000 dollars per year not to grow rice on their property.

They had no intention of growing rice. My parents are not farmers. They just own a bunch of rural land.

Funny that we have folks starving in the world and we are paying people not to grow food.

 

[Throckmorton]

You may say you don't believe in those rights, but like it or not some segments of the population DO have those rights, farmers and the elderly, and the rest of us are paying for them to have those rights. The same people who vote against any government program that helps people other than themselves and shout about socialism and marxist takeovers.

I say pull the plug. If we don't have those rights, neither should they. If you right-wing farmers and old people like the free market so much, ride it to the poor house and the grave and stop taking my money.

 

[cubeless]

single payer employment comes right after single payer healthcare on the road to nirvana...

 

[nobodyknows]

How could anybody support the notion that working people should make enough money to have a decent home, adequate medical care, and be able to save enough to retire on? Why, that's...that's.... that's unamerican!!

 

[misle]

How could anybody support the notion that working people should make enough money to have a decent home, adequate medical care, and be able to save enough to retire on? Why, that's...that's.... that's unamerican!!

Yes everyone should have the opportunity to do those things. But it shouldn't be taken from someone else and given to them by the government.

 

[Amused]

Hello,

I tend to listen the the gambit of political talk radio throughout the day often jumping from Sirius Patriot over to Sirius Left on a whim.

Yesterday while switching through I heard Alex Bennett talking about the "Economic Bill of Rights" proposed by FDR and how much more wealthy and prosperous we would be as a nation of we would have gone that route.

I'm wondering how many of you think he is right?

For those of you unfamiliar with the economic bill of rights here it is below:

http://www.ushistory.org/documents/economic_bill_of_rights.htm

In our day these economic truths have become accepted as self-evident. We have accepted, so to speak, a second Bill of Rights under which a new basis of security and prosperity can be established for all — regardless of station, race, or creed.

Among these are:

* The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation;

* The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;

* The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;

* The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;

* The right of every family to a decent home;

* The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;

* The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;

* The right to a good education.

I'm very up in the air about the entire thing to be honest with you.

While I don't have a problem with anyone getting any of those things and in a perfect world everyone would have them. I'm not sure how anyone can provide those things to all.

The right to a good education I'm OK with K-12 of course. I don't understand how we can guarantee someone a good house, a good job, and tons of other things.

You have the right to PURSUE those things, but CANNOT have a right TO them.

Why? Because each one requires the work product of other people. The work product of one man CANNOT be the right of another man. Then we have slaves and serfs instead of freemen.

How would you feel if you worked all day, and men with guns came and took what you made? Only you want to use the government to take shit instead of using your own gun. You no more have a "right" to the goods and services of another than those men with guns have a "right" to yours.

 

[zsdersw]

The main problem with this "Economic Bill of Rights" is that it attempts to guarantee outcomes instead of opportunities. Government can guarantee opportunity, but fails miserably (in both cost and lost freedoms) when trying to guarantee outcomes.

 

[cubeless]

The main problem with this "Economic Bill of Rights" is that it attempts to guarantee outcomes instead of opportunities. Government can guarantee opportunity, but fails miserably (in both cost and lost freedoms) when trying to guarantee outcomes.

since when can a gov't guarantee opportunity??? only when they control the means of production, and really not even then...

 

[Amused]

since when can a gov't guarantee opportunity??? only when they control the means of production, and really not even then...

When you are free, and your individual rights protected, your opportunity is guaranteed. What you do with that freedom is up to you.

No need to control the mean of production. That's only needed if you want equality of outcome NOT opportunity.

 

[CPA]

Where is the "Fuck No, what stupid, rediculuos idea" option.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Ok, I'd like to get involved in this thread, but I can't make it pass your first sentence.

I tend to listen the the gambit of political talk radio throughout the day often jumping from Sirius Patriot over to Sirius Left on a whim.

Did you by chance mean gamut, and not gambit? I'm pretty good at staying current with popular vernacular, but I just can't make gambit work in that sentence.

 

[Mursilis]

Hello,

* The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation;

How can a person have a RIGHT to a job? What if I'm unqualified for what I want to do, and refuse to do what I'm qualified for? I completely lack any musical talent, but I'd like to be a rock star - do I have a right to that job? What if I can't play sports? Can I sue some pro league if they won't give me a contract? Being a doctor sounds interesting, but med school's too much work, so I refuse to go - can I still be a MD? The whole idea is just plain ridiculous.

 

[totalnoob]

Notice that every one of those "rights" is actually a CLAIM put on the lives of others. The "right" to material goods is a claim put over the life/liberty/labor/property of those who are expected to provide those things. This is nothing more than a list of tyrannical bullshit...though I'm sure craig234 will love it.

 

[Deudalus]

Ok, I'd like to get involved in this thread, but I can't make it pass your first sentence.


Did you by chance mean gamut, and not gambit? I'm pretty good at staying current with popular vernacular, but I just can't make gambit work in that sentence.

Probably meant gamut yes.

 

[Fenixgoon]

Where is the "Fuck No, what stupid, rediculuos idea" option.

qft.

you don't have the RIGHT to anything except opportunity.

"life, liberty, and the *PURSUIT* of happiness (property)"

 

[daishi5]

Hello,

I tend to listen the the gambit of political talk radio throughout the day often jumping from Sirius Patriot over to Sirius Left on a whim.

Yesterday while switching through I heard Alex Bennett talking about the "Economic Bill of Rights" proposed by FDR and how much more wealthy and prosperous we would be as a nation of we would have gone that route.

I'm wondering how many of you think he is right?

For those of you unfamiliar with the economic bill of rights here it is below:

http://www.ushistory.org/documents/economic_bill_of_rights.htm

In our day these economic truths have become accepted as self-evident. We have accepted, so to speak, a second Bill of Rights under which a new basis of security and prosperity can be established for all — regardless of station, race, or creed.

Among these are:

* The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation;

Who can I sue or arrest if I cannot find a job? If I have no ability to seek restitution for the denial of my right to a job, do I truly have the right? What if I do not have any useful skills or am crippled beyond the ability to perform work, do I still have the right to a job I cannot perform?

* The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;

What if there is a famine and there is not enough food to feed everyone, who determines who has the right to food and who does not? What if I have no job and money, do I have the right to the produce the farmer worked for, even though he receives no compensation?

* The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;

If every person has the right to buy the food a farmer makes, how can the farmer at the very same time have the right to charge high enough prices to feed his family? What if their is a bad crop, in order for poor people to buy food the farmers price must be kept low, in order for the farmer to earn enough to have a decent living, his price must be high to cover his losses.

* The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;

Not much here except that "unfair competition" could be a little too broad. Is it unfair to GM if Ford decreases their costs and charges less?

* The right of every family to a decent home;

Who do they sue to get a decent home if they don't have one? If no one is willing to build homes, would we use slave labor to ensure people had homes?

* The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;

For medical care, see above, for good health, what do we do about the people with chronic diseases that we cannot cure, they have a right to a condition that we do not have the ability to provide?

* The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;

So everyone has the right to reality insurance? There is too little content to what this means to really argue against it.

* The right to a good education.

We have been trying that, and I don't think we have been doing a very good job at it yet.

I'm very up in the air about the entire thing to be honest with you.

While I don't have a problem with anyone getting any of those things and in a perfect world everyone would have them. I'm not sure how anyone can provide those things to all.

The right to a good education I'm OK with K-12 of course. I don't understand how we can guarantee someone a good house, a good job, and tons of other things.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Probably meant gamut yes.

LOL @ myself. Sorry, I have severe linguistic OCD.

 

[Deudalus]

daishi5, I think you are assuming that I disagree with you.

My simple point is that all of these are great goals and if you reworded the entire document that said "Create and maintain an economic system and government that gives people the opportunity for.................." in front of each of those bullets and I would be all for it.

But IMHO the government cannot provide for these things.

I am curious how many people believe that it can though and their thoughts as to how it can.

 

[daishi5]

daishi5, I think you are assuming that I disagree with you.

My simple point is that all of these are great goals and if you reworded the entire document that said "Create and maintain an economic system and government that gives people the opportunity for.................." in front of each of those bullets and I would be all for it.

But IMHO the government cannot provide for these things.

I am curious how many people believe that it can though and their thoughts as to how it can.

I am actually responding to the rights in question more than you. Any person who believes those are "rights" needs to be able to answer the questions. I think our current system has already succeeded at creating the opportunities for all but a few of those. No one can create an opportunity for everyone to be in good health yet, and I don't think we can shield people from the economic consequences of reality.

 

[Anarchist420]

We definitely need a 2nd BoR, but one that takes away power from the government rather than gives power to the government.

FDR had tried something like this, and I'm surprised it hasn't passed in the past 70 years. Anyway, society would be worse off if we had an Economic BoR, including those unable to help themselves.

The government has basically driven private charities out of business as it is already.

 

[lothar]

Quite possibly the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard.
Anyone who votes "yes" on this is a moron quite frankly.

 

[PokerGuy]

The "what an incredibly stupid idea" option appears to be missing.

 

[sandorski]

I'd stop short of enshrining those as "Rights", but they are all good Goals.