“ 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 all our citizens.
For unless there is security here at home there cannot be lasting peace in the world.”
Excerpt from President Roosevelt's SOTU
Started by
capt_morgan
, Mar 01 2012 04:49 AM
32 replies to this topic
#5
-
- VibeTribe
- 16,764 posts
Posted 01 March 2012 - 02:16 PM
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.
I agree with his statement, yet I view it completely different from how seany would view this passage. Economic security and independence to me, is the ability to enter into the market, ones labor, products, capital free of any coercion or undo violence from any other party. Economic independence, from my view, is to be free in ones exchange from burden carried to a third party. For instance, paying interest on ones accumulated capital.
In essence, I agree, but to FDR, this meant that he was going to arbitrarily decide what freedom, economic security and independents meeans. Such as follows:
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 enoughto 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 protectionfrom 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.
This is one man making the determination for entire people based on his own perceptions what others should have the right to. In it's founding, this country offered the right to all of these things. No one is denied the ability to lift themselves into positions to acquire any of this. No "second bill" was ever needed.
Arbitrary
1. subject to individual will or judgment without restriction; contingent solely upon one's discretion: an arbitrary decision.
2. decided by a judge or arbiter rather than by a law or statute.
3. having unlimited power; uncontrolled or unrestricted by law; despotic; tyrannical: an arbitrary government.
4. capricious; unreasonable; unsupported: an arbitrary demand for payment.
5. Mathematics . undetermined; not assigned a specific value: an arbitrary constant.
#6
-
- VibeTribe
- 16,764 posts
Posted 01 March 2012 - 02:19 PM
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.
And in the end, the war on poverty is a fail. It has not worked for the same reason central planning by a few for all never works. It's the same as it ever was.
#7
-
- VibeTribe
- 16,764 posts
Posted 01 March 2012 - 02:47 PM
“Paper money has had the effect in your state that it will ever have, to ruin commerce, oppress the honest, and open the door to every species of fraud and injustice.”
― George Washington
All human situations have their inconveniences. We feel those of the present but neither see nor feel those of the future; and hence we often make troublesome changes without amendment, and frequently for the worse.
-- Benjamin Franklin
“Rather go to bed without dinner than to rise in debt.”
-- Benjamin Franklin
― George Washington
All human situations have their inconveniences. We feel those of the present but neither see nor feel those of the future; and hence we often make troublesome changes without amendment, and frequently for the worse.
-- Benjamin Franklin
“Rather go to bed without dinner than to rise in debt.”
-- Benjamin Franklin
#8
-
- VibeTribe
- 14,589 posts
- Locationatlantic ocean
Posted 01 March 2012 - 04:41 PM
ya know...i must have read this 37 times last night and each time i read it differently...which is why i called my own post horse shit. its SOTU dribble. every right he states can be taken multiple ways. for instance...
The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;
i see that and automatically think universal health care
then i read it again and think he is just saying we have the RIGHT to get care....which is a non statement meaning nothing.
or in a racial context...you have the right to get care if ur chinese...or whatever...
this is one of those threads where i have a thought...i start a thread...then shit all over myself.
The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;
i see that and automatically think universal health care
then i read it again and think he is just saying we have the RIGHT to get care....which is a non statement meaning nothing.
or in a racial context...you have the right to get care if ur chinese...or whatever...
this is one of those threads where i have a thought...i start a thread...then shit all over myself.
#9
-
- VibeTribe
- 16,764 posts
Posted 01 March 2012 - 05:02 PM
Economic/social central planning, is what i refer to here. The founders weren't central planners. They scripted a consitution that (in their best judgement) kept the power of government extremely limited in order to allow individual liberty among the people. They left it to the people to plan for themselves as so long as they followed the guidelines established by the constitution and bill of rights.
You won't find many references to arbitrary designations such as FDR displayed above, in the constitution.
At any rate, it is just my .02 and nothing more. Interpret FDR anyway you like, that is exactly what he did.
It's simply MY opinion on the matter, as my name was brought into it without me inputting initially. (not that I care)
You won't find many references to arbitrary designations such as FDR displayed above, in the constitution.
At any rate, it is just my .02 and nothing more. Interpret FDR anyway you like, that is exactly what he did.
It's simply MY opinion on the matter, as my name was brought into it without me inputting initially. (not that I care)
#10
-
- VibeTribe
- 14,589 posts
- Locationatlantic ocean
Posted 01 March 2012 - 05:10 PM
Economic/social central planning, is what i refer to here. The founders weren't central planners. They scripted a consitution that (in their best judgement) kept the power of government extremely limited in order to allow individual liberty among the people. They left it to the people to plan for themselves as so long as they followed the guidelines established by the constitution and bill of rights.
You won't find many references to arbitrary designations such as FDR displayed above, in the constitution.
At any rate, it is just my .02 and nothing more. Interpret FDR anyway you like, that is exactly what he did.
It's simply MY opinion on the matter, as my name was brought into it without me inputting initially. (not that I care)
please ignore the fact i just deleted the post ur commenting on...im trying to consolidate my scattered thoughts
#12
-
- VibeTribe
- 16,764 posts
Posted 01 March 2012 - 05:28 PM
The interference of the time was a reaction to undoing free markets and replacing it with corporatism, most profoundly, in the banking and monetary policy...IMO.
How much interference is enough? Where, and who draws the line? We see today, that it is never enough interference. Govt. intrudes, makes a mess and then tries to recalibrate that mess by making more interference to counter the unseen consequences of the initial interference and on and on. As if at some piont, utopia will be reached.....
“The bureaucracy is expanding to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy.”
― Oscar Wilde
Alright, now I'll leave you to it. I've said me piece.
How much interference is enough? Where, and who draws the line? We see today, that it is never enough interference. Govt. intrudes, makes a mess and then tries to recalibrate that mess by making more interference to counter the unseen consequences of the initial interference and on and on. As if at some piont, utopia will be reached.....
“The bureaucracy is expanding to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy.”
― Oscar Wilde
Alright, now I'll leave you to it. I've said me piece.
#15
-
- VibeTribe
- 14,589 posts
- Locationatlantic ocean
Posted 01 March 2012 - 06:17 PM
Not really, I'm sure others will have something to say. Seany, you wanna add in here, brah?
As it is merely MY opinion as to what FDR meant in the initial passage in my posts. i'm sure others have thoughts on it.
i value ur opinion more than you know
#23
-
- VibeTribe
- 6,308 posts
Posted 01 March 2012 - 07:59 PM
after a quick read through my first thought was that fdr got a lil loose w/ the term "right". should everyone be allowed to have the opportunity to achieve what he listed? sure, but these things are not rights & i don't see them being rights unless we turned to complete socialism (& even then, some of these "rights" still wouldn't be able to be put into practice imo).
i didn't see what cap't posted before he deleted it so i can't comment on that, but mostly i'm here "rubberneckin"
i didn't see what cap't posted before he deleted it so i can't comment on that, but mostly i'm here "rubberneckin"
#31
-
- VibeTribe
- 8,284 posts
- LocationWhisky a Go Go
Posted 01 March 2012 - 08:31 PM
what is "right" for you, is not necessarily what is "right" for the country, or "right" for the planet.
So, where do we draw our line in the sand? For me, personally, I believe the country should come first.
It's just my belief that if we, as a collective, take care of the country as a whole, each individual would be better off. As far as the planet goes... I know it's kind of selfish but I think we should take care of our own country first. And that's why it's all arbitrary. It comes down to how much selfishness you can accept within yourself.
But even that could change...
So, where do we draw our line in the sand? For me, personally, I believe the country should come first.
It's just my belief that if we, as a collective, take care of the country as a whole, each individual would be better off. As far as the planet goes... I know it's kind of selfish but I think we should take care of our own country first. And that's why it's all arbitrary. It comes down to how much selfishness you can accept within yourself.
But even that could change...
#32
-
- VibeTribe
- 16,764 posts
Posted 01 March 2012 - 08:54 PM
after a quick read through my first thought was that fdr got a lil loose w/ the term "right". should everyone be allowed to have the opportunity to achieve what he listed? sure, but these things are not rights & i don't see them being rights unless we turned to complete socialism (& even then, some of these "rights" still wouldn't be able to be put into practice imo).
i didn't see what cap't posted before he deleted it so i can't comment on that, but mostly i'm here "rubberneckin"
It isn't that he's wrong that people have the rights to these things. They do and those are already given under the constitution. What FDR was pushing to do was have the federal government middleman the process so that everyone, whether or not they made any effort to attain such things, would be granted them through social programs. Which, he did do.
And as i said before, the war on poverty is an epic failure that has left the country indebt to the tune of trillions and a box full of IOUs in the SS coffer.
#33
-
- VibeTribe
- 8,284 posts
- LocationWhisky a Go Go
Posted 01 March 2012 - 09:23 PM
Who can objectively judge how much "effort" a person puts into attaining something? Isn't that arbitrary? What if a person puts an arbitrarily large amount of effort into attaining material wealth, but those efforts are morally wrong for the majority of people? Should that person still be rewarded?
