Great discussion going on over on Reddit:
(1944) After WWII FDR planned to implement a second bill of rights that would include the right to employment with a livable wage, adequate housing, healthcare, and education, but he died before the war ended and the bill was never passed.
Nice, cordial discussion going on over at Reddit:
[–]super_amazing
I think the fundamental problem here lies in the definition of a “right”. “Rights”, as enumerated in the Constitution and described by Philosophers like John Locke are natural rights, or rights that are universal and inalienable from the individual. They are also negative rights – they exist outside the government’s control, and the government needs to do nothing to protect them. The only thing the government needs to do to protect your negative right to speech, expression, and religion is to not impinge on those rights in the first place. Then there are positive rights, the type of rights that FDR is advocating for here. They require the government to provide some product or service, and cannotexist unless the government does so. They are, by definition, not natural, as they cannot exist in a state of nature, without a functioning government. Whether or not you believe that positive rights should be provided, a distinction must be made between the two. To me, it’s irritating to hear entitlements (which is what FDR was advocating for) described as rights, since they are not in any way “rights” in the classical sense.
Edit: there are really good replies at the bottom of this chain, so if you want a different perspective, take a look at those.
[–]proboardslolv5
This assumes that there is such thing as man in nature. While Locke thinks so, Rousseau would argue that there is no such thing as pre-social man, and that man is defined by his society (and by extension, the existence of a government)
[–]super_amazing
Good point. But from what I understand, the Founding Fathers were more influenced by Locke in their belief in what constituted “rights”. If Rousseau had his way, we’d probably be much more of a democracy.
[–]pmmeamilleniumfalcon
This is a wonderfully interesting discussion. Thank you.
[–]super_amazing 23
Hey, no problem! Two Treatises of Government is a pretty interesting read, and not too long, if you want to learn more.
[–]SirGidrev
The civility of this discussion is great. You guys have peaked my interest.
Pop over to Reddit to read more of the discussion:
I came here after doing a search on “startpage” about the SBofR’s and signed up to comment. That being said. I have a direct and personal interest in seeing that the SBofR’s becomes a realty. Not just an accepted part of governing but ratified by Congress as the first Bill of Rights was. Why? For every force there must be an equal or greater force. The current government that we have has placed us and the planet in grave danger due to inequality. This must change so that we may have a future that respects those citizens of the future, our children. I am also related to FDR and it is my duty to assist him in his goal even though he passed away long ago. If it is my duty then I also think it is your duty. Is it not?
That is fantastic. If you want to learn how it can easily be done… (and how FDR actually did it originally), you should download this short book: https://underground.net/7dif If you read just half of it, you will have a much greater understanding on how all it can be paid for (and it’s not by taxing the rich as most people think.)
I am a 4th cousin of FDR, I know how it was done. It is a matter of getting the Second Bill of Right’s ratified by Congress. Raising taxes on the wealthy may save the social net though, which would save Social Security, FDR’s landmark achievement. Which would be one step further away from the fascism we have today.
If there are those that have an interest, my site is:
gilbertweaversatchell.org