What is Digg?Sponsored by newegg
Ready. Set. Shop view!
newegg.com - Newegg.com Black Friday Sale starting 11/25 3PM PST. No Lines, No Crowds, Click and Save.
231 Comments
- btschul, on 10/03/2009, -24/+89“The right to a useful and remunerative job… The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation… The right of every family to a decent home… The right to adequate medical care… The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment… The right to a good education.”
You are free to earn all of those things, but you don't have a right to any of them. If you don't earn them, they must be taken from someone else to be given to you, thereby infringing on that person's rights. - fej64, on 10/04/2009, -23/+62This is preposterous - you cannot have a "right" to something that forces a "duty" on someone else. If you have a "right" to a house, then someone else has to be forced to build it for you (or someone else has to be forced to pay for it). You cannot have a "right" to free medical care for the same reason, it forces a doctor to provide it.
Contrasting this with Freedom of speech, or the right to be secure in ones person and privacy, these do not impose a duty on other people.
Everyone wants poor people to be able to afford houses and medical care, but this is not the way to go about it. Let the free market do its thing, and get government out of the way.
For example, if we want healthcare to be cheaper:
1) Make all medical expenses tax deductible
2) allow insurace to be sold across state lines. This is one of the main reasons there is no competition
3) Remove ALL mandates for health insurance - some states force all buyers to buy coverage for certain health issues they cannot physically get. It would be like forcing you to get hurricane insurance in Detroit.
4) Allow nurses to setup their own shops without doctor supervision. Nurses can treat 80% of the stuff wrong with you.
Just declaring free healthcare for everybody won't do anything to curtail the costs, no matter what obama says. - trevor98, on 10/05/2009, -1/+34The government cannot give anyone rights. If it does, then they are not rights but gifts. The Bill of Rights simply enumerates some of the rights on which government cannot trample. Notice that these amendments all limit the power of government rather than grants to the people. The freedom of speech exists in the base state of humans and the the Bill of Rights expressly forbids US government is from curtailing it through law.
- inactive, on 10/05/2009, -8/+37The so called "Second Bill of Rights" abolished the first Bill of Rights. The government does NOT give you your rights, they existed prior to even the existence of the government.
- novenator, on 10/03/2009, -23/+51Expanded beyond the 4 Freedoms that FDR famously spelled out were these (FTA):
These rights included: “The right to a useful and remunerative job… The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation… The right of every family to a decent home… The right to adequate medical care… The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment… The right to a good education.”
I know there are a few people on digg who disagree that people have a right to any of those things, that life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are not really rights either, but they are all important issues. - dutchguilder2, on 10/05/2009, -9/+36On April 5, 1933, Roosevelt issued a proclamation declaring the possession of gold coins, bullion, or certificates unlawful and subject to criminal penalties.
In May, the Thomas Amendment to the Agricultural Adjustment Act (AAA) was passed, giving the president the authority to increase the money supply by $3 billion in unbacked bills and to reduce the value of the gold dollar by up to half.
In January 1934, came the Gold Reserve Act. All the gold held by the Federal Reserve banks was seized by the U.S. Treasury. In return, the banks received something called “gold certificates.” These could not be exchanged for actual gold, but functioned merely as receipts for the gold stolen. By executive decree, Roosevelt reduced the value of the gold dollar — for purposes of foreign exchange transactions — from $20 an ounce to $35, a devaluation of 40 percent.
Before 1933, there was an important shackle upon the Fed’s ability to inflate and expand the money supply: Federal Reserve Notes themselves were payable in the equivalent weight of gold. ...The government cannot create new gold at will. But Federal Reserve Notes can be issued at will, at virtually zero cost in resources. In 1933, the United States government removed the gold restraint on its inflationary potential by shifting to fiat money: to making the paper dollar itself the standard of money, with government the monopoly supplier of dollars.
The age of unending inflation, sometimes slow, sometimes faster, had arrived. Dollars issued by the Fed are borrowed into existence, and must be repaid with interest. The interest must be repaid in dollars, which can only be created by borrowing, which creates more dollars and more interest, which means more and more inflation and a larger and larger debt that can never be repaid.
Thanks FDR! - NorthMass, on 10/04/2009, -20/+45The Second Bill of Rights was simply communism. You have no right to a home, or to a job, or to recreation. These things are not handed to you, I am not going to demonize every social program and say they have never done any good, but these ideas that FDR brought up were awful, they were communist.
And how on earth are we going to pay for everyone to have a house, a job, all these things? Tax rates would have to be astronomical, like in a communist country. We would basically become a communist country for the most part with a little bit of capitalism still around if the Second Bill of Rights came to fruition, the government would control almost every aspect of your lives, and though we don't have much freedom right now, we would have virtually none in this scenario. - blorc, on 10/04/2009, -8/+32Let's assume for a minute that it wasn't going to be paid for by tax loot or through inflation of our fiat currency.
If you're suggesting that everyone has a right to health care, then that suggests that people who strive to become doctors should work for free because everyone has a right to health care, and therefore the doctor must remit services even if he's not paid for them.
Now let's apply it to something more common. Let's say everyone has a right to a car, because everyone needs to be able to get to their job to which they have a right. All car manufacturers should make cars for free then, right?
Now let's take it back to these things being paid for with taxes. Now the doctors and the car dealers are getting paid by the government with taxes, except the only difference is the service is being stolen from a different group. Instead of stealing directly from the doctor because people supposedly deserve his services, we're now stealing from the productive people in the nation to pay for the unproductive. There's nothing wrong with helping people in bad situations, but there is something wrong with forcing someone else to do it at the point of a gun, which is what government does indirectly. - arpad, on 10/05/2009, -8/+32Unfortunately, none of those are rights.
A right doesn't impose an obligation.
My right to blab doesn't impose an obligation on you to pay for my newspaper or web site. All your "rights" create requirements and that's not a right. That's just the exercise of authoritarianism tarted up in a morally-acceptable disguise. Morally, its no better then your right to my TV because you can kick in my apartment door. - vuke69, on 10/04/2009, -7/+29Novenator, I believe you have fundamental misunderstanding of what rights are.
Rights are passive. You have the right to pursue anything on that list, without someone else suppressing your rights. That does not mean it is a shopping list of what will be provided to you for zero effort. - btschul, on 10/04/2009, -9/+29So because the U.N. says it, it's true? So when the U.N. said that 300,000 citizens of Darfur weren't worth saving from being slaughtered, was that correct? How about when they just stood by while the largest genocide in Europe since WWII took place in Srebrenica? Was that the right thing to do, seeing as how it is the U.N., and the U.N. knows what's best?
- btschul, on 10/04/2009, -8/+27Stay in school, get a job, make money, buy things you need?
- NorthMass, on 10/04/2009, -7/+26How is guaranteeing someone everything from a job to a house not communist? What is it if it isn't communist? It's not socialist, socialism is when the government owns the means of production, but doesn't own and give people literally everything imaginable. And its obviously not capitalism.
- PeppermintPig, on 10/04/2009, -3/+21"So what's your solution?"
No one individual can dictate value for others. It would be hubris to articulate the nature of value then answer your question with a specific governing solution. I don't desire to tell you how to live and harm you if you disagree, and I would hope that you can share such a value and resist tyrants in all their forms; the local street gang, the strong-arm corporation, the authoritarian state.
Corporatism is a political problem first and foremost, and swapping out one politician for another does not strike at the root of a problem many have created by assuming a lesser evil was not evil. Centrally planning psuedo-charity isn't ethical in the least.
"just because you say so means nothing"
As long as he's not advocating force or violence on others, that means the world to me. You should be free to disagree, though.
Even if you only consider the natural disparity of life and not the culmination of statism that inhibits productivity, your search for 'solutions' should start with persuading people to be your friends/customers/associates in completing the solutions that you find valuable. You won't necessarily have success overnight, but if you keep at it... - nullvector, on 10/05/2009, -13/+31I find it so funny that someone who has made millions of dollars off of "evil capitalism" can stand up and say how bad it is.
The other thing I find funny is how so many people here on digg advocate "spreading the wealth". Well, you are free to do so if that is your moral conviction. Donate all of your extra cash to the government. Pay higher taxes voluntarily.
Providing jobs, food, healthcare shouldn't be a "requirement" of the government. When you make the government responsible for people's welfare, you basically turn America into a nanny-state, where people don't have to do anything, and don't have any incentive to work harder.
When you take from those who work, and give to those who don't, those who work, won't anymore. - btschul, on 10/04/2009, -8/+24Prove that farmers, textile workers, construction workers, doctors, and teachers don't work for free?
- vuke69, on 10/04/2009, -4/+19"In fact, wouldn't that pretty much mean that the Bill of Rights means that one has the 'right to pursue' their freedom of speech?"
Precisely. You have the right to say (mostly) anything you want. But no one is under any obligation to listen to you. And absolutely no one is obligated to give you special forum to do so. As long as no one is stopping you, your rights are upheld.
That doesn't mean you can demand to be heard at half-time of the Super Bowl, before Congress, etc. Now if you can pull off that kind of audience, more power to you. But no one would be suppressing your rights if they denied you that opportunity.
"With all due respect, I think these things are all inalienable."
Once again you are 100% correct, but again by accident. You're misunderstanding what some of the words mean. Inalienable rights, means that your rights cannot be changed, taken, or given away. Not whatever it is you think it means.
---
To give a nice easy example of how this works, that few people would argue with, take this: You have the absolute right to have sex with whomever (of age) you wish. (some legislators may disagree, but they're wrong) That does not mean anyone else is obligated to participate. They just can't prevent you from having sex with another consenting adult. You're not owed sex, just because it is your right to have it. - btschul, on 10/04/2009, -7/+20"it is an expansion of freedom for the human condition"
What about the people who end up footing the bill? Their freedom to own property is less important?
"As for the UN response to Darfur and Bosnia, the UN condemned it all"
They condemned their own response (sitting and watching as it happened, even when they had peacekeepers on the ground), or they condemned the genocide (which I'm sure made the victims feel soooo much better)?
"wouldn't that pretty much mean that the Bill of Rights means that one has the 'right to pursue' their freedom of speech?"
You are confusing positive and negative rights. You have a right to free speech, and you have a right to have a job, however the government is no more obligated to make sure you have a job than it is to make sure that you have a microphone and something worthwhile to say. As vuke69 said, you have a fundamental misunderstanding of rights, but you aren't alone, as it seems the U.N. does too. Perhaps you and the leaders of the 48 countries that voted for the Universal Declaration of Human Rights should do a little reading on the subject.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positive_rights - PeppermintPig, on 10/04/2009, -2/+14What is communism, noupsell? Is it a ghost? Is it a bunny? Is it candy? Is it a tree? Does it have any meaning, or any form? Is it ever referenced toward historical events? Have there ever been any believers, adherents, or witnesses? Is it more than one thing? What fruits has it borne?
- nullvector, on 10/05/2009, -3/+15Uh...defense is the whole purpose of a government anyway. Really, their only responsibility, the defense of the land and it's people.
Not having to worry about invaders and people trying to usurp our land is what lets us work in the first place.
Idiot. - btschul, on 10/05/2009, -4/+15"Nothing has to be "taken" as we can all give." Sure, we CAN give, but we shouldn't be forced to.
"Where does "taking" come into play at all?" When the supporters of the institutionalized jealousy that is liberalism decide that your property rights are less important that their right to have whatever they want for free, just because you have worked hard to earn more money than them. If someone wants to donate money to an organization that works to provide school and healthcare and homes for people who can't afford them, that is wonderful. But people should not be forced to provide those things for others. - inactive, on 10/05/2009, -6/+17Heres where this falls apart: in 1930 the biggest home a person would dream of having is 1000 sq. ft. with at most 1 car, and meat for dinner one night a week. The most clothes a person would dream of having is the ability to wear a clean outfit every day.
The problem with government welfare is it is subjected to a subjective sliding scale, where what people think they have a government providing right to is strongly correlated to what they feel entitled to. Such a system is destined to fail. - NorthMass, on 10/04/2009, -7/+17Well if your a communist then that's cool but I would beg you to reconsider as communism has killed over a 100 million people.
- neognostic, on 10/04/2009, -11/+20Corporatism is capitalism run amok.
Both are currently failing miserably. - poonjob, on 10/05/2009, -6/+15noupsell:
you must really have no concept of what communism is do you?
FDR is absolutely the worst president of all time and you can thank him for the ***** path our country has gone since then. - btschul, on 10/04/2009, -7/+16And?
- digitalArtform, on 10/04/2009, -20/+29you cannot have a "right" to something that forces a "duty" on someone else.
You do not have a right to military defense because you cannot compel someone to be a soldier for you.
You may have the right to remain silent, but you do not have a right to an attorney in a criminal case because you cannot force that duty upon someone.
Oops. So much for that ***** line of reasoning. - rustytire, on 10/05/2009, -2/+11Because it is not posted in the article, here is Roosevelt's Second Bill of Rights as taken from Wikipedia. Posting simply as a reference for discussion:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Bill_of_Rights
Excerpt from 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. - dcherryholmes, on 10/05/2009, -5/+13I wonder why people always have to distort these things into caricatures? The rights he was expressing are the same rights that *all* of our NATO allies also acknowledge, and their societies are better for it. That's not my opinion; choose your metric. And they are not mustache-twirling mini-Stalins, either. What we're talking about is very reasonable, leaves capitalist competition intact, and would improve the lives of *millions* of people. Hell, affordable higher education. Just think about that one.
- inactive, on 10/05/2009, -4/+12@digitalartform
Government is an instrument of coercion, that's all it is. There is only one case where using coercion is justified and that is to repel someone else using coercion on you, in other words self defense. You are justified using force if someone is trying to attack you or steal your stuff.
The government is the collective self defense force of the populace. As long as what the government does falls is providing self defense, for example providing a military, providing a police force, then its actions can be viewed as legitimate. When the government engages in transferring property from one group of people to another group a people to buy their votes, then this is an illegitimate use of force and the government is no better than the common criminals it claims to be protecting us from. - angryfirelord, on 10/05/2009, -6/+14Right along with Carter and LBJ.
- rpgmakr, on 10/05/2009, -1/+9There are many countries in Europe that abide by that Bill of Rights and they are not communists. Socialist maybe, but they have a better standard of living.
- JustChillin12, on 10/04/2009, -27/+34Ah FDR. One of the USA's worst presidents.
- LinuxPerson, on 10/05/2009, -3/+10General welfare does not imply giving things out for free to those that don't pay taxes. It means providing things like interstate roads and regulating interstate commerce, not giving health care and houses to people for free.
Using your definition of "general welfare" one could argue that the Federal government has the responsibility to give people health care, a car, a house, a yacht, a vacation home, a new pair of shoes, and so on. Do your homework, welfare is well defined in the constitution... it's not some blanket statement that grants Congress the authority to do whatever it wants.
You can keep repeating the same propaganda about the Constitution but it does not make it true. - roddack, on 10/05/2009, -4/+11You make several false assumptions. First libertarians do not oppose societal cooperation what they opposed is when cooperation stops being voluntary and instead is enforced by the threat or initiation of force against those who no longer are "cooperating". Further you mistake that a libertarian would consider that things like a speedy trial by jury as an actual right. You must understand that typically the only rights libertarians recognize are what are collectively referred to as natural rights.
You see the notion of what you consider humanity is not something a libertarian would consider humane. They would point out that shoving a gun into someones face taking their justly acquired property and giving it to someone else who has no claim to it. Would not be an act of humanitarian but the act of a thief. Libertarians have no problem with donating to help a cause or to help someone improve their lot in life. What they have a problem with is when those "donations" are coerced out of individuals by the threat or the actual initiation of force.
So no they will not climb aboard the ship of oppression and try and steer it with you. - ChuckDees, on 10/05/2009, -2/+91st Amendment Section 8
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States - buddymander, on 10/05/2009, -5/+12"it's creating a society where these rights occur naturally via careful regulation of the economic system."
careful regulation of the economic system?
Ahahah
Yeah because the federal government is so good at that. - norman619, on 10/05/2009, -4/+10Next they will say everyone has a right to sex since sex is important to good health. These people don't give a damn that they are advocating slavery.
- btschul, on 10/04/2009, -6/+12"Those rights are not the constitution's to give." The constitution does not give any rights, it guarantees your unalienable rights.
- aheinzm, on 10/05/2009, -2/+8which rights do you find to be arbitrary?
Should we grant ourselves a right to a yacht or 26 weeks paid vacation? That would really be worthwhile! - btschul, on 10/04/2009, -7/+13The purpose of the military is to protect your rights from infringement by a force that would attack everyone collectively. There is a difference.
- darkened, on 10/05/2009, -1/+7We hate that you think you have a right to what we have earned for ourselves that you feel some how entitled to my labors.
- dcherryholmes, on 10/05/2009, -6/+11Also, apparently, all of Western Europe is Communist. I did not know that.
- btschul, on 10/04/2009, -6/+11They aren't "my rights". They are your rights too. Everyone is guaranteed the same equal rights. If you can come up with a better way to protect them, please let me know. Libertarians like myself consider government run police, courts, and military necessary evils that are needed to preserve freedom and protect those rights.
- subliminalurge, on 10/05/2009, -0/+5If you simply say that everyone has the right to a decent home, the clear implication is that one must be provided for him if he does not have the means to acquire it himself.
If you are saying that everyone has the right to purse a decent home, then the conversation is moot because that describes the current state of affairs and there is no discussion or change necessary. - roddack, on 10/05/2009, -1/+6@Doug I don't support the use/threat of force as a method to coerce people into a desired behavior no matter what mantel they try and hide their actions behind. At lest with a thief I don't have to suffer pretenses that their actions are actually "for my own good" or that a gang forcing me pay protection money is for "my own security"
As for the constitution while I am may have at one time been willing to support it. I have since learned that a piece of paper is not a guarantee of protection from government abuse. Nor does it restrict people from using it to justify all sorts of evils because they twist it into a pretzel. That doesn't even begin to address its legitimacy.
While I understand how you can see it as frustrating when they start opposing everything. You have to understand that by not opposing abuses at every opportunity will leave the door open for more and more future abuse because after all if I didn't speak out on X then why should I get all up in arms about X+1 or X+2 - roddack, on 10/05/2009, -2/+7You are assuming that their is no difference between an obligation and a negative obligation. Which I believe is an essential part of the core ideas of natural rights which is what is being invoked, typically, when the discussion of rights, in this instance, is being discussed.
- roddack, on 10/05/2009, -1/+6I think the problem is that one one side says "rights" the other side doesn't understand what context they are referring to when they make their claim. I would say that as a general rule of thumb in all likelihood when a "conservative" refers to rights they are typically invoking the idea of "natural rights" Where as when a progressive refers to rights they are likely referencing the notion of what would be considered "legal rights"
- fej64, on 10/05/2009, -0/+5@blackhaloz - who said I was advocating for anarchy! I am on the limited government belief for a republican (note the little r) form of government. And you are also correct, the government's main (some would very persuasively argue only) job is to insure our rights.
You see, we have more in common then you think! - dstntmbrk, on 10/05/2009, -5/+9"it's creating a society where these rights occur naturally via careful regulation of the economic system. Like he said, economic laws are determined by people, not by nature"
Economic laws are not determined by people. They are steadfast principles that cannot be manipulated, and all attempts to do so by governments result in disaster.
http://jim.com/econ/contents.html -
Show 51 - 100 of 237 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is