Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: FDR's "2nd. Bill Of Rights" (should be the demands of the Occupy Movement)

Posted 3 years ago on Nov. 7, 2011, 9:18 p.m. EST by JohnsonJaimes (260) from Sanibel, FL
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

  1. The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or
    mines of the nation;
  2. The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;
  3. The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him
    and his family a decent living;
  4. 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;
  5. The right of every family to a decent home;
  6. The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;
  7. The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness,
    accident, and unemployment;
  8. The right to a good education . All of these rights spell security for all, even the 1%. Very forward thinking for being almost 70 years in the past. FDR spoke these rights at the last State of the Union address from '44 before he died. If he lived, we would have seen these rights granted to all.

20 Comments

20 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 2 points by ANetliner (3) 3 years ago

Well said and an excellent idea. FDR is a hero for 2011 and beyond.

[-] -1 points by electrictroy (282) 3 years ago

He locked-up innocent americans (for the crime of having japanese grandparents). He sued farmers that refused to ration their food and/or sell milk/chickens at inflated government prices (see SCOTUS cases of the 1930s). He even threatened the Supreme Court justices with dissolution, because they kept overturning his laws as "unconstitutional"..

He is no hero.

More like an anti-hero.

[-] 2 points by nomdeguerre (1775) from Brooklyn, NY 3 years ago

No he is a great hero. American history books haven't given him his due. I never even heard of his Four Freedoms until I visited Springwood, FDR's home and now a National Historic Site, http://www.nps.gov/hofr/index.htm.

In terms of the Japanese internment that was a crime against both the individuals and the constitution. I don't think he had the power to control it.

All who love democracy should visit Springwood, if they can. His fighting spirit, his love of democracy and justice was obvious, as was the personal price he paid for the struggle (which he loved).

[-] 2 points by looselyhuman (3117) 3 years ago

He signed the executive order. It was a time of hysteria after Pearl Harbor, and overall the Japanese were well-treated (especially considering how the empire treated its prisoners). We need to accept FDR as a great man, but imperfect. We're not doing ourselves any favors otherwise. He also should have acted proactively to stop the transport of Jews eastward to Nazi deathcamps, but he didn't make it a priority. Doesn't change that he's one of our greatest presidents - certainly the greatest of the 20th century.

[-] 1 points by nomdeguerre (1775) from Brooklyn, NY 3 years ago

". . . a great man, but imperfect." Yes.

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by commandersprocket (2) 3 years ago

He was "allowed" to be elected because Huey Long was available, along with other populists. He was relatively sedate in his policies in comparison to the populists of that day.

[-] 2 points by nomdeguerre (1775) from Brooklyn, NY 3 years ago

FDR's Four Freedoms Speech:

We look forward to a world founded upon four essential human freedoms. The first is freedom of speech and expression--everywhere in the world. The second is freedom of every person to worship God in his own way-- everywhere in the world. The third is freedom from want . . . everywhere in the world. The fourth is freedom from fear . . . anywhere in the world. --President Franklin D. Roosevelt, Message to Congress, January 6, 1941

http://www.fdrfourfreedomspark.org/franklin-d-roosevelt-four-freedoms

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5iHKtrirjlY

FDR's promise was betrayed by the fake-democracy movement which sadly turned the victory against Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan to the wrong direction.

Anyone ever wonder why 20th century revolutions were only Marxist and not democratic like our own? Betrayal by the same forces that OWS opposes now. Our movement has been building for decades, it has a deep history.

[-] 1 points by JustinChamberlain (4) 3 years ago

Check out the 12-step process documented in Wildfire, The Legislation that Ignited the Great Recession. There you have what should be the demands of the OWS movement. A classic.

[-] 1 points by nomdeguerre (1775) from Brooklyn, NY 3 years ago

OK, I'll search for that (or do you have a link). Thanks.

[-] -1 points by electrictroy (282) 3 years ago

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

FDR violated this one by rationing how much wheat and potatoes farmers could grow. He even drug one poor farmer to the Supreme Court, in order to force compliance.

Very forward thinking for being almost 70 years in the past.

All he did was copy the Soviet Union's constitution which is 100 years old. The National Socialists of Germany also ran on the same bill of rights in 1931 and 32. FDR was just copying those guys' ideas.

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by RufusJFisk52 (259) 3 years ago

not economically viable without imposing a police state and having a gigantic govt with massive power to enforce.

[-] 2 points by nomdeguerre (1775) from Brooklyn, NY 3 years ago

No, not by regulation, but by economic structure. We'd have to shift to a true small business economy (which the RATpublicans claim (i.e., lie) to be loyal to). This would also prevent the hyper concentrations of economic power that now override our 'people are sovereign' democracy. It would also reignite competition which is the genius of capitalism and innovation, but which degenerate capitalism (unrestrained dog eat dog, with only mad dog colossuses left standing) hates. It would also require economic national borders.

[-] 0 points by whisper (212) 3 years ago
  1. Who is to provide the jobs? To whom should they be provided and according to what criteria? By what means is it to be determined whether or not a specific job should be provided?

  2. Who is to decide what is adequate?

  3. Who is to enforce the price of the farmer's goods? Who is to decide what constitutes a decent living?

  4. As for this one, the only form of destructive monopoly is a coercive monopoly, which is a monopoly maintained not by virtue of the product or service provided, but by government edict backed by force.

  5. Again, who is to provide the homes? Who is decide what is decent?

  6. Who is to decide what is adequate?

  7. How can one be protected from one's own emotions? I will go ahead and assert that this one is impossible to achieve under any system, theoretically or otherwise.

  8. Who is to provide the education? Who is to determine what constitutes a "good" education?

[-] 1 points by commandersprocket (2) 3 years ago

The answer to each of the questions will change over time. What is "free" speech? the answer changes over time, what is "unreasonable searches and seizures"? Nobody is going to have complete answers for these because they will change over time. If the framers of the bill of rights saw the "unreasonable search and seizures" caused by the drug way they'd crap their pants. If Thomas Jefferson saw that corporate political advertizing was protected by "free" speech he would crap his pants.

[-] 1 points by whisper (212) 3 years ago

Freedom of speech and of the press is the freedom to proliferate and access information, -ANY information-. The question 'what is free speech? (which implies that there is a category of unfree speech; an idea NOT present in the constitution)' is a very sly attempt to evade the fact that there is no qualifier provided in the bill of rights as to what kind of speech is protected. What is protected is the freedom to speak or to publish (and to access such speech and publication). To speak about and to publish what? Anything is the answer. The purpose of that amendment was to prevent the government from censoring information.

As for Unreasonable Search and Seizure, this presupposes an objective standard of 'reasonableness'. Without such a standard there can be no provable dimension of 'reasonableness'. As far as I can ascertain, no such standard exists, save for general consensus. A 'right' protected only by general consensus is doomed to be subordinated to the will of whoever controls the government. This is why I advocate the explicit inclusion of the right to life in the bill of rights. All rights are derived from the right to life (and the specific metaphysical nature of that life).

My point is that government, which is, by definition, the organized use of force and/or coercion cannot guarantee a 'right to a job' or a 'right to education' or anything else that must be provided by SOMEONE who provides it in order to secure their own living. The rights that people DO have (which are determined not by government, but by the nature of the kind of life humans possess. It is only up to government to recognize those rights or not), are the rights which enable them to provide the means of their own survival. No man has a right to the effort of another, only to his own.

[-] -1 points by nomdeguerre (1775) from Brooklyn, NY 3 years ago

Where are MikeyD's and whisper's comments? 'Poo flinging monkey' trolls should be banned, but anyone fit to comment here should have their comments appear. I remember whisper's comment, I didn't agree with it, but it wasn't dishonest or obstructionist.

Is it the point system? But that would make the board a popularity contest.

[-] -2 points by electrictroy (282) 3 years ago

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

FDR violated this one by rationing how much wheat and potatoes farmers culd grow. He even drug one poor farmer to the Supreme Court, in order to Force compliance.

Very forward thinking for being almost 70 years in the past.

All he did was copy the Soviet Union's constitution which is 100 years old. The National Socialists of Germany also ran on the same bill of rights in 1931 and 32. FDR was just copying those guys' ideas.

[-] 1 points by antigoldencalf777 (14) 2 years ago

so what? if it is a good idea. it should be copied over and over

[-] -2 points by MikeyD (581) from Alameda, CA 3 years ago

How about the women? I have a right to be happily married with a good looking wife who makes me happy, and wonderful kids. Its the most fullfilling thing in the world, and nobody should be deprived of it!

There are others, but this one needs to be on the list.