The Second Bill of Rights

[Danny]

On January 11, 1944 President Franklin D. Roosevelt proposed a 'Economic Bill of Rights' on his radio address and film address from his Oval Office.

President Roosevelt's January 11, 1944 message to the Congress of the United States on the State of the Union[1]:

It is our duty now to begin to lay the plans and determine the strategy for the winning of a lasting peace and the establishment of an American standard of living higher than ever before known. We cannot be content, no matter how high that general standard of living may be, if some fraction of our people—whether it be one-third or one-fifth or one-tenth—is ill-fed, ill-clothed, ill-housed, and insecure.
This Republic had its beginning, and grew to its present strength, under the protection of certain inalienable political rights—among them the right of free speech, free press, free worship, trial by jury, freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures. They were our rights to life and liberty.
As our nation has grown in size and stature, however—as our industrial economy expanded—these political rights proved inadequate to assure us equality in the pursuit of happiness.
We have come to a clear realization of the fact that true individual freedom cannot exist without economic security and independence. “Necessitous men are not free men.� People who are hungry and out of a job are the stuff of which dictatorships are made.
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.
All of these rights spell security. And after this war is won we must be prepared to move forward, in the implementation of these rights, to new goals of human happiness and well-being.
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.

This is a wake up call against a pre-plutomonic nation we called the United States of America. The Rich don't govern this nation WE DO!

WORD FROM THE STREET PROPHET

Make the Second Bill of Rights happen for Neda Soltani's sake.

[Danny]

Any thoughts?

[rb336]

I like 'em

[elganned]

They contradict the Bible.

[Danny]

If the Second Bill of Rights were passed by congress, then America will be TRUE free nation with absolute utopian culture power. I can get a decent union based job, a home, free universal health care, retirement pensions. Our problems will be solved, crimes will be reduced, no more recessions, no more worries. I would like to have the Second Bill of Rights proposed in congress and into Obama's agenda. RIGHT NOW!

Spread the word across the US of A.

[rb336]

They contradict the Bible.

I do hope you are being facetious

[elganned]

Just thought I'd throw that out there. Sooner or later, somebody would.

[ccbatson]

They contradict the constitution of the USA...but fit well as a mission statement for the USSR.

[elganned]

Nothing in this list contradicts the constitution, Cc. But as a group and as stated they appear to guarantee the right to equal outcomes, whereas true rights deal with guaranteeing equal opportunity.

Take "The right to a good education," for example.
You have the right to a decent school building, reasonably accessible, safe, with competent teachers and administrators and adequate supplies. That's the opportunity.
The outcome [[a good education), however, is your responsibility. You can apply yourself and succeed, or blow it off and fail.

Like the old adage about horses and water, the nation is only obligated to provide clean, adequate, safe water--whether you drink it or not is entirely up to you.

I would rather say these outcomes are aspirations, and imply rights only so far as we assume responsibility to remove unreasonable obstacles to their achievement. But rights to be guaranteed by government? No.

[ccbatson]

A right to an education is not implied in the constitution...a right to individual liberty and opportunity is.

[elganned]

Universal education--to a minimum level--is a goal we have established for ourselves as a nation in the belief that an educated electorate is the surest safeguard of democracy.

You are correct that it is not in the federal constitution, but it was established as a national principle in the Northwest Ordinance of 1789 and has been adopted by every state--which is permitted under the Tenth Ammendment.

So stick that in your Objectivist pipe and smoke it.

[oladub]

Obama has voiced his support for a similar 'positive' bill of rights.

Why not just print a million dollars for every American and let them buy the education and health care they want? I am being facetious because that is essentially what is being proposed except that authorities will dole it out as they see fit. Either way, we are already bankrupt as a nation. Nice happy reading though believing that government can be the good fairy though it must borrow, print, and inflate to pay its present bills.

Still, if this is what the people want to try doing, the Constitution can be so amended.

[Lorax]

Roosevelt had it right, and much of what he proposed did happen- now it's up to us to finish job, by putting the freaks on the fascist right out of their misery.

Universal, single payer health care for all.

Stiff tariffs on imported goods.

Breakup of monopolistic banks and other mega corporations.

Return to a 90% tax rate

This should do it. Send the "free market capitalist" thugs over the cliff once and for all.

[Lorax]

A right to an education is not implied in the constitution...a right to individual liberty and opportunity is.

Liberty and opportunity are not achievable simply by decreeing it.

Health care and education in a modern world are necessary components to provide the basis for liberty and opportunity.

What's so difficult to understand about this?

We aren't living in the 12th century, so shape up or ship out.

[oladub]

Liberty and opportunity are not achievable simply by decreeing it.

Health care and education in a modern world are necessary components to provide the basis for liberty and opportunity.

What's so difficult to understand about this?

We aren't living in the 12th century, so shape up or ship out.

Jefferson thought that Liberty was endowed by a Creator and that governments were created to secure liberty. That doesn't contradict what you wrote but why not have your State of Florida deliver health care and education to you? I assume it is already delivering education - or as much as the people in Florida want to pay for.

[Lorax]

Jefferson thought that Liberty was endowed by a Creator and that governments were created to secure liberty. That doesn't contradict what you wrote but why not have your State of Florida deliver health care and education to you? I assume it is already delivering education - or as much as the people in Florida want to pay for.

Problem is, the Republicans which have controlled the state house for years, have decided to gamble with the state's pool of lottery money, which was earmarked for state education, both on the local level, and colleges as well.

With the "billions" promised to education since the state lottery began about 14 years ago, the schools are still ranked near the bottom nationwide.

Like I have said ad nauseum, Rethhuglicans can't look at a pile of money put aside for social purposes and not want to gamble with it, steal it, or generally siphon it off for their own corrupt purposes.

Rethuglicans in Florida are particularly corrupt as politicians go. Marco Rubio, the fascist right winger is vying for the Senate seat held by Mel Martinez, along with Charlie Christ, who is perceived by many Rethuglicans as "too soft" of a conservative.

Haven't met ONE Rethuglican who brings anything to the table beyond corruption, greed, and lousy social policies.

Health care reform in any real sense will never happen as long as Rethuglicans are in control of the state house. They do the bidding of the giant corporations, and have no interest in representing people.

[rb336]

This should do it. Send the "free market capitalist" thugs over the cliff once and for all.

The problem is that "free market capitalism" has been replaced with "greed market capitalism" by an unbroken string of corporatist presidents from ronnie to dubya

[oladub]

The problem is that "free market capitalism" has been replaced with "greed market capitalism" by an unbroken string of corporatist presidents from ronnie to dubya

Update: "from ronnie to hopeychangy". eg. Lobbying for the Wall Street bailout. What could be more corporatist except voting for the same?

I would go back further though and include Republicans like Harding who supported most everything corporations wanted . Also, I would include Roosevelt who modeled some of his recovery programs loosely on those of Mussolini. He was for the working people but within a corporatist structure.

[elganned]

I'm intrigued by this notion of "corporatism" and how the term is being used on the forum; I learned about corporatism as an economic system, but my understanding doesn't jibe with how you're using it.

What do you understand corporatism to be, and how is it manifested?

[Sstashmoo]

Quote: "What do you understand corporatism to be,"

As it is used in this forum? "Corporatism" is the evil guy or guys behind the curtain, the hellbent on screwing over the little guy, the well-connected, the unseen, the unregulated, unrestrained beast that will kill us all.

[Papasito]

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

already covered, we all have the right to apply for work there, as long as the mines aren't shut down, the industries aren't run out of business thanks to free trade products made by third world countries who pay workers $20@month.

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

yep, that's covered, provided that there's jobs

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

subsidized. already done.

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

monopolies are busted up all the time. this base is covered. [[although with all the bank mergers going on, some breakups are due...)

The right of every family to a decent home

Affordable housing, low income housing, yep, this is covered too.

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

emergency rooms can't legally send you away. also, it says nothing about the government being your insurance provider.

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

Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security... all up and running. And they should be around as long as the government makes them a priority again and stops borrowing from Peter to pay Paul.

The right to a good education.

Public schools are all over the place. Furthermore, student loans are readily available for college. In addition, loans are not just available to the poor, they are encouraged to the poor, minorities, ect. Plus grants and scholarships are all over the place.


If we grant the Government a second bill of rights, all it will do is give them more power to operate with, and they will manipulate the words in it in order to gain more money and power for themselves. Don't forget that corruption and greed runs rampant in Washington, and this document is just a weapon they can use in thier arsenal to manipulate us and take advantage of us while saying it's for our own good.

[oladub]

I'm intrigued by this notion of "corporatism" and how the term is being used on the forum; I learned about corporatism as an economic system, but my understanding doesn't jibe with how you're using it.

What do you understand corporatism to be, and how is it manifested?

I have a file that includes definitions, quotes, examples, and such about economic fascism/corporatism. I have seen definitions that claim that under corporatism, large corporations dominate government and others claiming that under corporatism [[economic fascism) governments dominate businesses. There is also a slippery slope from corporatism to more authoritarian forms of fascism. I have quotes saying corporatism is capitalism and socialism. So different people have different but often overlapping definitions and cut off points leading to understandable confusion. Here are some samples from my file.


“Fascism should rightly be called Corporatism as it is a merge of state and corporate power.� -ascribed to Mussolini

Another keystone of Italian corporatism was the idea that the government's interventions in the economy should not be conducted on an ad hoc basis, but should be ``coordinated'' by some kind of central planning board. Government intervention in Italy was ``too diverse, varied, contrasting. There has been disorganic intervention, case by case, as the need arises,'' Mussolini complained in l935. Fascism would correct this by directing the economy toward ``certain fixed objectives'' and would ``introduce order in the economic field.''
A third defining characteristic of economic fascism is that private property and business ownership are permitted, but are in reality controlled by government through a business-government ``partnership.'' As Ayn Rand often noted, however, in such a partnership government is always the senior or dominating ``partner.'' http://www.aapsonline.org/brochures/fascism.htm


The fundamental appeal of [[economic?) fascism to the everyday person is threefold. It consists of:
 The promise of security. Fascists typically posit threats, external and internal, that are easily identified but difficult to fight, and then promise to protect you from them - if only you will give them absolute power to do so.
 Relief from uncertainty. It is no accident that Orwell had his dictator characterize himself as Big Brother. The fascist relieves you of the responsibility to make difficult decisions. You simply follow orders - given, of course, by Big Brother.
 A share of strength. Most insidious, Big Brother will let you exercise power over others - as long as you exercise Big Brother's power Big Brother's way.
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/FJ19Aa02.html


corporative state, economic system inaugurated by the Fascist regime of Benito Mussolini in Italy. It was adapted in modified form under other European dictatorships, among them Adolf Hitler's National Socialist regime in Germany and the Spanish regime of Francisco Franco. Although the Italian system was based upon unlimited government control of economic life, it still preserved the framework of capitalism. Legislation of 1926 and later years set up 22 guilds, or associations, of employees and employers to administer various sectors of the national economy. These were represented in the national council of corporations. The corporations were generally weighted by the state in favor of the wealthy classes, and they served to combat socialism and syndicalism by absorbing the trade union movement. The Italian corporative state aimed in general at reduced consumption in the interest of militarization.
http://www.encyclopedia.com/html/c1/corpor-st.asp


Mussolini thought it was unnatural for a government to protect individual rights: "The maxim that society exists only for the well-being and freedom of the individuals composing it does not seem to be in conformity with nature's plans." "If classical liberalism spells individualism," Mussolini continued, "Fascism spells government." http://www.banned-books.com/truth-se..._3/ts213l.html

Clinton described his Anti-Terorism Act in familiar language [[March 1, 1993, USA Today): "We can't be so fixated on our desire to preserve the rights of ordinary Americans." A year later [[April 19, 1994, on MTV): "A lot of people say there's too much personal freedom. When personal freedom's being abused, you have to move to limit it." http://www.isebrand.com/Gore_Vidal_McVeigh_2001.htm

"If there's a way of doing it voluntarily, that's more consonant with the American character," he said. "If you can't solve the problem without the government stepping in, that's when you make it mandatory." Barack Obama
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/ar...546302,00.html

"Freedom is about authority. Freedom is about the willingness of every single human being to cede to lawful authority a great deal of discretion about what you do and how you do it." -Mayor Giuliani, New York Newsday pg A3 4/20/98
"Freedom is not a concept in which people can do anything they want, be anything they can be. Freedom is about authority. Freedom is about the willingness of every single human being to cede to lawful authority a great deal of discretion about what you do." - Rudolf Giuliani

"We must stop thinking of the individual and start thinking about what is best for society." [Hillary Clinton, 1993]

"Journalist John T. Flynn, a former socialist, in his 1944 book As We Go Marching, surveyed the interwar policies of Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany, and pointed to what he called uncomfortably similar American policies. Flynn saw links between 'generic' fascism and a large number of policies of the United States. He said that "the New Dealers ... began to flirt with the alluring pastime of reconstructing the capitalist system ... and in the process of this new career they began to fashion doctrines that turned out to be the principles of fascism.""

"Herbert Hoover was a major architect of peacetime corporatism. As Commerce Secretary he encouraged the cartelistic integration of trade associations with labor unions. As President, he pioneered most of the New Deal measures, which had the unexpected effect of prolonging a depression itself caused by governmental monetary policy. In the election of 1932, important Business liberals shifted their support to FDR when Hoover refused to go over to a fully fascist form of corporatism. By contrast, the Roosevelt Administration pushed through the National Recovery Act, which openly sanctioned the cartelizing activities of trade associations, and the Agricultural Adjustment Act, cartelizing the farm sector. The Wagner Act of 1935 integrated labor into the nascent system."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_New...nd_corporatism

[rb336]

If we grant the Government a second bill of rights, all it will do is give them more power to operate with, and they will manipulate the words in it in order to gain more money and power for themselves. Don't forget that corruption and greed runs rampant in Washington, and this document is just a weapon they can use in thier arsenal to manipulate us and take advantage of us while saying it's for our own good.

this is granting US a bill of rights to protect US from the predations of the greed merchants

[ccbatson]

State collusion is not automatic or assumed whenever a corporation [[big or small) exists. THerefore, the term Corporatism is misleading if this is how it is understood.

[Rideron]

There is a common misunderstanding afoot here.

Under our founding charters of government, we already have all these rights.

They do not, however, come because they are granted TO us 'by the Government', we have them by virtue of the fact that we are 'endowed with them by our creator'.

The role of Government under our Consitution, and particularly the supplemental 'Bill of Rights', was not to 'create' rights which we already have, but to specifically enumerate specific rights. The whole purpose the bill of rights was drafted was because there were not enough states willing to ratify the Consitution because it was not specific enough.

The Roosevelt proposal went far beyond that, and sought to create NOT 'rights' [[all of which we already have) but to convert those rights into Government bestowed and regulated 'entitlements', or 'benefits'. The purpose of THAT was to create more dependancy upon Government and intrusiveness by Government.

The governments job is to protect the rights you already have as free men and women. If you want to change that into a belief that rights come FROM Government, then at least do it right and throw out the old Consititution and write a new one.