FDR's Economic Bill of Rights

Positive Rights are fucking garbage.

Also 9th Amendment covers this stuff already.

Is the right to counsel a "positive right"? What about the right to a trial by a jury of your peers?

You're fucking garbage.

I think your post defines "shitposting" desu

...

Its a civil right afforded by convention rather than nature.

But since those ideas ARE socialism, and we don't have these recognized as rights in the USA, how can you give a critique of whatever you consider socialism to be?

How's your first year at College been going?

If people had social rights they wouldn't be so willing to trade their political rights for exploitative employment contracts.

>muh idealism
Reminder world war 2 got us out of the depression.
Also any law including the highest laws in the united states are always left to extreme interpretation and eventual exploitation. FDRs plan would be a victim to this practice, if for better or worse.

>do you even Tocqueville

>Reminder world war 2 got us out of the depression.

WW2 got us out of the Depression, sure. But the New Deal saved America from the kind of social unrest that plagued Europe and Asia by restoring confidence in the government and the system. So the new deal was essential psychologically even if it wasn't completely successful economically.

> Is such a thing even possible?
Most of Europe has such a bill of rights.

>But the New Deal saved America from the kind of social unrest that plagued Europe and Asia
Actually Britain and France were recovering from the depression faster than US. Also faster than Germany, whose government incidentally had a similarly heavy-handed approach to economy.

>Most of Europe has such a bill of rights.

Maybe 40 years ago. Also a "second" bill of economic rights is worthless without a first bill of rights guaranteeing civil rights, free speech, right to own firearms, etc.

>trade their political rights
example?

>he thinks the English approach to recovery wasn't heavy handed

They just had the balls to actually spend their way out of the recession, and in doing so basically created welfare capitalism. I don't know about France, but I doubt they recovered with laissez faire policies either.

In my opinion, those aren't rights, at least not in the way they are formulated.
You'll never have all people living well and happily and there'll always be poverty and welfare leeches.
What's actually fundamental is the right to have the chance to achieve that: any person in the country must have the chance to pursue the best possible education and get the best job according to their own skills.
This is the only way a fruitful and fair society can exist.

...

>Maybe 40 years ago.
What are you talking about? Constitutions don't have an expiration date.

It amazes me that in a country founded on the principles of natural rights Americans still don't understand the concept after 227 years, and thus think they have a "right" to a decent job or medical care.

t. teenager in a civics class

Please elucidate for us the justification for any of those being considered a right.

>Why didn't we get this, Veeky Forums?

Because even FDR didn't actually believe the shit he said. I bet you think LBJ actually cared about ending poverty too, right?

thanks for the laugh

What is it with Americans, and not being able to deal with the concept of negative and positive rights/liberties

> My right to have a job is more important than your right to not employ me

This is why socialism will never work. It necessarily limits freedom in order to cater to the least useful in a society.

>insert statement questioning your definition of "least useful" here
>insert statement pointing out that a reduction in actual jobs isnt a factor of capable workforces, but is simply the outcome of ever increasing mechanization and automation

Least useful means those that wouldn't be employed otherwise. Its all up to the employers.

Man, don't lump us all together like that. Those of us who aren't from flyover states have a better conception of the greater good than "I dun wanna do nothing for nobody else and you cain't make me!"

So what are potential workers to do if they live in a system where there are simply too many workers?

Send them to build ghost cities, like the Chinese do.

>"Rights"

no there not "Rights"

That isn't the problem of the society. They should do whatever they can to survive but everyone else shouldn't be forced to cater to them being unable to keep their head above the competition.

You make the claim that isnt a problem of the society, but you ignore that a society is made up of the many, and that, by definition, if some of the many are having a problem, then it is a problem faced by the society as a whole. Unemployment leads to greater rates of crime, health issues, and a general drain on the tax payer. Better to employ individuals in tasks that have no intrinsic value other then a)keeping them busy and b)providing a livable wage, then to simply do nothing, or worse, wait for the "market" to correct the issue.

I frankly don't care about the state of a society. The government shouldn't be forcing people to do things that don't directly harm other people. The ripple effects of a free market are irrelevant.

If you're American you already got the first 6.

Why shouldnt the government be doing such things? If you make that claim simply based on personal preference/gut feeling, then this discussion is over. However, I would point out that, at its very core, a Governments job is to protect the citizens. Now, in the US you have this weird view that limits this mission, but in the rest of the developed world we understand that, even if we view it as selfish eccentric viewpoint, the actions of others effect us, and it is in our best interests that people be educated, employed, and healthy

First of all I don't live in the US. The government shouldn't be restricting things like this because there is no way for it to stop at an 'appropriate' level. Even in the rest of the developed world things are going too far.

Slippery slope argument. And why does that only apply when talking about the government acting to protect societies, but now when we talk about the rights of the individual outweighing society as a whole?

Because there can be a more or less objective definition of bodily harm and the other things which I think should be banned, eg. theft.

you mean those same flyover states that put the bread on your table?

Those function as limits on government behavior against you. So they can not just grab you off the street and imprison you on a whim.

FDR was America's extremist dictator brought on by the Depression.

Italy got Mussolini, Germany got Hitler, Spain got Franco

... jesus christ, if your trolling, you got me. If not, then you, sir, are a shining example of the US education system at work

He was a useless and vain rich man's son. Kept making shit worse with his good ideas for the Plebs. Demagogue against his own Socio-Economic class, with a little wink wink. wanted to double the size of the supreme court. so he could stuff it with judges who would approve everything he did. It failed but then he breaks Washingtons' tradition of 2 terms. Baits Japan into war and new Pearl Harbor was going to happen. We had been reading Japan's diplomatic and naval codes well before the war. the 22nd amendment was made just to make sure another FDR didnt' happen. oh and he gave half of Europe to Stalin.

Lets talk about theft; theft from private property is easy to quantify. But the US claims to stand for, as Jefferson put it, "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness". Now, what happens if your right to life (via sickness, starvation etc) is robbed, based on the economic unfairness of the time? Is the right for individuals such as Trump not to have more of their assets "stolen" by the government of greater importance then the individuals that die daily due to starvation and sickness? Are the rights of gun owners not to have their guns "stolen" of greater importance then individuals who have their lives stolen by the same instruments? Sure, it is easier to quantify it your way. But the easy way is rarely the more effective or correct way

Nice strawman buddy...

>I have a right to violate others' rights by coercing them into providing a job, adequate wage, home, medicine, welfare, and education
10/10 logic dude lol

Because the economy and society are so much better in 2016 as a result of following a system of free market capitalism, right?

>What are positive and negative liberties
>What is the state of nature
Jesus christ, this is basic shit

and the Soviet Union was a paradise, eh comrade??

Look, we both know how this argument goes;
>I say look at the western world other then the US
>you will either make a joke about asylum seekers in Europe, or how Murrica is the greatest because, or that you dont care about society

The EU is being flooded with various kinds of nigger. To prop up their GDP and social welfare spending programs, through population growth. Unfortunately the "new europeans" are just a drain on the economy and coffers. So the ruling elites of Europe have to criminalize free speech, political parties, and use massive public shaming campaigns to quell unrest.

Yes.

And now I say go back to /pol/, you say "where do you think we are", and then I continue on with my merry day, in a country that isnt the shithole that isnt the US, with my universal education, healthcare, and employment services.

>ITT: College students don't understand philosophy or economics and laughably try to insult others who do.

>ITT: Americans desperately try to justify their shitty living standards to the rest of the Western World

>America has one of the highest standards of living in the world
>"GET ON OUR LEVEL" - NigeriaN

ok

what free market capitalism

>HDI has Murrica as 8th
>Behind Norway, Ausfailia, Switzerland, Denmark, Netherlands, Germany, and fucking Ireland
Its almost like having a well formed social welfare state leads to a higher quality of living. Name me one poll in which the US is number 1

>name a bunch of countries that are dependent on the US
>all of them have unsustainable finite resource based economies
>US is 8th of hundreds of countries

?????

>every one of those countries have a higher debt to GDP ratio than the US
>all of them depend on US for military protection
>all of them tax their citizens at crazy rates
>better

ok

>Only one of the 8 countries (Ireland) has a higher GDP debt ratio then the US
>Typical US warmongering (seriously, who are you protecting thoise 8 from, the Russians and the Chinese?)
>Implying having a proper tax revenue system is somehow evil
>Murrica

>all of them have unsustainable finite resource based economies
wat

Because it is retarded, counterproductive and suicidal.

Because are not rights, but rather expenditure with other people's money, impossible to implement in its entirety.

And that becomes an intolerable burden to all imbecile enough to adopt this program.

Yes, there are countries imbecile enough to do so.

Because contrary to popular belief, Americans hated commies and socialists in the 30's and there wasn't actually a gap between the 1920's and 1945 as believed.

It literally is the problem of society.

>dependent on the US
???
>higher Debt to GDP ratio
??????

Some of the scandi welfare states rely heavily on oil extraction to fuel their economy.

The supreme court essentially has ruled over the years that the 9th amendment does not exist.

You guys arguing over rights dont understand the joke. 'Rights' dont exist. Its rhetoric. The Bill of Rights is basically 'here are good rules to protect people from government' any larger meaning behind that is just drivel.

Why not?

Literally why should this definition be correct, over any others?

there's so many spooks in this post I thought I was on /x/ for a second

A right to an education(including higher education), healthcare & shelter & labor rights are pretty nice, tangible goals for our society to work toward

but i dont understand the basis of having a right to a job, though. how would that work in practicality?

>but i dont understand the basis of having a right to a job, though. how would that work in practicality?

How did it work in the Soviet Union?

In eastern bloc work was compulsory but generally speaking there was always work.

All those countries were during heavy, unending industrialisation, there was always a vacant workplace waiting for people looking to work.

>heavy, unending industrialisation

Pretty sure that was over by the end of the 1970s just like in the West.

this

>US
>Free market
Pretty baka senpai, it's so free with all of those licenses, regulations made by and for the Koch brothers, while the medical association has restricted entry to the profession, and what are farming subsidies which destroyed farms in Colombia forcing them to grow narcotics to survive?

This.
With these in place markets will work better.

It was a different time back then, but even at the height of the war mobilization full-employment was a pipe dream.

Spooks is the worst meme of Veeky Forums and Veeky Forums

>>The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation

>>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.

Poorer countries than the US already have this.

>The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation

Can be done:
moslereconomics.com/mandatory-readings/full-employment-and-price-stability/

Won't be done:
economie.politique.free.fr/liens/Kalecki_1943.pdf

The farmer thing could be done by a combination of abolishing subsidies,and having price supports and tariffs.

what about voltaire

That's not socialism.

No, they're not.

Even German wages have stagnated or declined?

Also, the idea of the government as an employer of last resort and the conversion of welfare to workfare seems like something even conservatives could get behind. Has any nation successfully implemented this policy?