Talk:Second Bill of Rights

Comments

One of the difficult decisions relating to this entry is what to call it.

Cass Sunstein's 2004 book on these rights has as title The Second Bill of Rights.

Sunstein's subtitle is FDR's Unfinished Revolution, and, Why we Need It More Than Ever.

Commonly, the rights are called plain Economic Rights.

Commonly they are also thought to be our missing Civil Rights or unrealized Human Rights.

Also, these rights are presented as the foundation for an Economic Democracy or Welfare State.

The rights are relevant to political economy -- but not to conventional economics apart from politics.

Roosevelt's main concern was winning a war and preventing the next war. He saw these rights as strategic.

Few poeple today see them that way. Yet they may be strategic -- and concern for strategic rights today, in the middle of a war to democratize as much of the world as possible (to avoid nculear war), is a vital concern of all readers and writers of wikipedia.

If President Roosevelt was right, and only by establishing his economic rights in fact (as well as law) can wikipedia's people hope to survive, then it would be sad to complete a great encyclopedia with pages missing that might have saved their lives. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johngelles (talk • contribs) 23:52, 25 April 2005 (UTC)

That is one view, however, not necessarily the best solution for a problem, because the rest of the world, while still suffering from the "depression" that was world wide, it lasted longer here in America than the rest of the world (earning the name the Great Depression), in part due to the policies and actions of FDR's administration. The problem is you almost never hear about this because it goes against the liberal's agenda, and instead of the "mainstream" media doing their job and being a watchdog over the actions of the governments, they are complicit in pushing the agenda more often than not. Since the progressive left is playing the long game, it is unlikely we will see the truth of what damage the current administration's activities are actually causing to the country for many years. 32.212.104.223 (talk) 03:22, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Or you can call it what it is: socialism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.238.191.22 (talk) 18:14, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

It's more complicated than that. It's positive rights -- what the government must do for you and give you -- rather than the negative rights that the Constitution lays out -- things that God gave you and the government isn't allowed to take away. It's also something of a violation of the separation of church and state: charity ought to be taken care of by local churches, who know what's going on and how best to fix it, not by a bloated, inefficient, corrupt, and uncheckable federal government. However, since the church over the last hundred years or so has increasingly been content to just sit in its corner and preach to itself, pushing all their social responsibility onto the government, it's hardly surprising. But anyway, talk pages aren't a forum, so we shouldn't be discussing this here. 72.92.174.241 (talk) 18:48, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Socialism is public ownership of the means of production so, no, we can't call it that. -- 98.108.211.71 (talk) 08:48, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Socialism is not public ownership of the means of production - that would be communism. Socialism is merely the path to the absurd idea that all will live equally when the state controls all and lords over the distribution in order to ensure that the masses have an equal share. This leads to epic failure, in that (to borrow a quote from Karl Marx) "Mankind's own worst enemy is greed". Governments cannot "do for you" and "give you", nor should they be expected to. Wealth is created by individuals by virtue of designing, marketing and selling ideas, products or services. Thus far, all that "governments" have succeeded in designing, marketing and distributing are programs which divest hard working people of their dollars to fund projects which are, at best, woefully behind schedule and over budget - and at worst, criminal. Why not take this insanity a step further and allow the government to "give to you" a mate, children and all other aspects of life? Thank God FDR failed to implement this - otherwise, we would be "enjoying" the same "success" as the Sov... uh, FORMER Soviet Union. 199.64.0.252 (talk) 18:13, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Re: 98.108.211.71's claim about socialism. Then why is it that Obama tried using the same bullshit reasoning "what the government MUST do for you and give you" (my emphasis) and it still doesn't apply here. All the American government MUST do is stay out of the way as much as possible and stop trying to control, coerce, or in some cases totally take over, and what it must give us is the ability to honor the oath that every single elected federal government official took, "to protect, defend, and preserve the Constitution of the United States, from all enemies, foreign and domestic", not try to do everything they can to bypass it, ignore it, do end runs around it, however you want to phrase it, and BECOME an enemy of it. 32.212.104.223 (talk) 03:16, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Edit/addition to my post above: And actually, you (98...71)are somewhat mistaken, the Constitution was specifically built that way to be a LIMIT to the government, so in that respect, it isn't "negative" at all, although, since Obama tried arguing the same point as you "doesn't say what it must do for you" etc, it seems you are on the liberal left side of this particular thought process. Which I find kind of ironic in some cases. The liberal left leadership is trying to take over more and more control over what the citizens do, etc, despite being granted the freedom to think that way by the very same mindset they are apparently fighting against. 32.212.104.223 (talk) 03:59, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Socialism is ownership of the state - alone. The Second Bill of Rights asked to created a strong Social Contract (see Thomas Hobbes - The Social Contract Theory 1654). In 150 years of muddling and misrepresenting this word "Socialism", authors have spurned Socratic Method's best-practice of separating terminology. Socialism has been diluted to imply i) ownership, ii) ethics, iii) fiscal and economic responsibility, and iv) social programs - often to fulfill agendasc. See disambiguation of terms for the Monetary System at [spam link redacted]. Strong Social Contract nations have strong economies at all times in a monetary system cycle - and often rely on an 80%/20% mix of capitalism/socialism ownership to build it [spam link redacted] Edtilley4 (talk) 18:50, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

from vfd

deletion debate: Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Franklin Roosevelt's Second Bill of Rights 12:03, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Article photo

The current photo at the head of the article was taken in 1933 during his first fireside chat. Maybe we should find a more contemporaneous image for this article?THD3 (talk) 18:04, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Needs Additional Citations

This article contains very few citations, and of the three currently listed in the page's footnotes (there are few in-line citations): one is barely relevant to this article on a 20th-century speech (a citation stating that an unspecified "last phrase" was used in a 1762 law case), one citation link is non-functional (the State of the Union Address link in the footnotes), and the third citation is to Michael Moore's controversial documentary film (rather than to, perhaps, the sources his film cites for the origin of the documents).

In short, this article needs more citations, better citations, and more in-line citations.

I have added in a couple in-line "needs citation" tags to these purposes.

This article is of some importance, and should be properly cited to reflect this.

Works of Sweat (talk) 20:38, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

french page, links

I'm working on the french page witch I'm begining to translate. I just found some links that might intrest you

some more about the condition of the speech at the fdr presidential library and museum, plus original pictures of the text [1]

history of presidents speeches with some estimation for roosevelt listener (60M 1933 ; 100M 1947) at the white house historical association [2]

also this one about michael moore's "dig up" [3]

I also put updated links for the original and complete speech in the french page.

Schmuumf (talk) 20:01, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Total rewrite

The article pretty much violates every MOS guideline and from there it just gets worse. Viriditas (talk) 03:29, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Well, you are not very specific, but I tend to agree, and the neutrality is also questionable, I think. From a European POV, it is not very neutral, but has a distinct slant towards the right, and other comments here could explain why it is so. From thw European perspective, the Second Bill of Rights would have given Americans a social "safety net" much like we have in most European countries. Of course, the "communist scare" and the subsequent "brainwashing" of Americans has resulted in most Americans reacting strongly towards anything labeled "socialism", while obviously not having a proper understanding of the concept of socialism. Again as evidenced by other comments above. It seems that this and also Roosevelt's New Deal are things many Americans either don't know anything about, don't understand, or simply want to be forgotten. 5.186.55.135 (talk) 00:54, 1 December 2024 (UTC)