Franklin D. Roosevelt's Second Bill of Rights

[NobleSavage]

The Second Bill of Rights was a list of rights proposed by Franklin D. Roosevelt during his State of the Union Address on January 11, 1944.[1] In his address Roosevelt suggested that the nation had come to recognize, and should now implement, a second "bill of rights". Roosevelt's argument was that the "political rights" guaranteed by the constitution and the Bill of Rights had "proved inadequate to assure us equality in the pursuit of happiness." Roosevelt's remedy was to declare an "economic bill of rights" which would guarantee eight specific rights:

Employment, with a living wage
Food, clothing and leisure
Farmers' rights to a fair income
Freedom from unfair competition and monopolies
Housing
Medical care
Social security
Education

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Bill_of_Rights

If Roosevelt would have succeeded with this how do you think it would have turned out?

 

[AthenaAwakened]

Like sunshine and lollipops

 

[dockeen]

Since there is a huge devil in the details of divining what those great words mean when applied to real world problems, then I suspect not so well.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

If Roosevelt would have succeeded with this how do you think it would have turned out?

That is what happened for decades isn't it? Perhaps it wasn't a perfect situation but those years after WW2 were certainly bountiful.

There has never been a civilization or society that stayed on top forever. Once resources are sufficiently exploited all the affluence comes to an end. Maybe Roosevelt needed to work into his plan something about fucking and praying too much.

 

[Arctish]

It sounds like what the Soviet Union tried to do. It was a huge improvement for the average Russian in the early 20th century, but the tax burden needed to support it would most likely have been a huge impediment for the average American.

 

[arkirk]

It sounds like what the Soviet Union tried to do. It was a huge improvement for the average Russian in the early 20th century, but the tax burden needed to support it would most likely have been a huge impediment for the average American.

If would simply make money-changing for a living irrelevant. If the "tax burden" was spent delivering the benefits, it would look more like a circulating economy...the way it is supposed to be. He was just saying the government could do what the capitalists won't and can't.

 

[Sheshbazzar]

Likely we would not be living in an unbalanced economy where 1% held 42% of the wealth, ...highly invested in foreign business interests. with only 5% of the wealth in control of 80% of the population, massive underemployment, and full-time wages that are below poverty level.

 

[arkirk]

So many of us seem so skeptical we can do anything about assuring human rights. We can, but it takes backbone and devotion to the cause. I felt Roosevelt accomplished a great deal, considering he was a politician, and respect him for it. It was a shame his second bill of rights was attacked and he wasn't there to defend it.

Good law has humanistic values as its base. Bad law has punitive intent. We need more discussions on how to treat each other better, not more formulations of how to punish "bad guys."

 

[AthenaAwakened]

So many of us seem so skeptical we can do anything about assuring human rights. We can, but it takes backbone and devotion to the cause. I felt Roosevelt accomplished a great deal, considering he was a politician, and respect him for it. It was a shame his second bill of rights was attacked and he wasn't there to defend it.

Good law has humanistic values as its base. Bad law has punitive intent. We need more discussions on how to treat each other better, not more formulations of how to punish "bad guys."

They tell me I have spread more rep around so I can't rep you for this, but it sure does deserve it.

 

[EricK]

There are a few odd things in there.

What does a right to employment mean? Who has the responsibility to employ you? And who gets to choose what it is you are employed as?

Why do farmers, specifically, have a right to a fair income, and not, for instance, tailors?

What is "unfair competition"? I suspect this is one of those racist code phrases AthenaAwakened mentioned in another thread, on another board. I think it might refer to competition from foreigners

 

[AthenaAwakened]

There are a few odd things in there.

What does a right to employment mean? Who has the responsibility to employ you? And who gets to choose what it is you are employed as?

Why do farmers, specifically, have a right to a fair income, and not, for instance, tailors?

What is "unfair competition"? I suspect this is one of those racist code phrases AthenaAwakened mentioned in another thread, on another board. I think it might refer to competition from foreigners

how much do you know about the political and economic history of the US during the mid-twentieth century? From this post, I'd wager not a whole lot. Like practically none.