The Second Bill Of Rights

by pyrrho

The following is a list, a second bill of rights or "economic bill of rights", proposed by FDR.

• 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.

These are taken from FDR's State of the Union Address in 1944.  An interesting part of the presentation is that FDR does not actually propose this but asserts these are the new self-evident rights, that these are additional rights we had come to recognize in America, even then in 1944.  If we have them now or had them then is open to debate. 

Are these eight "rights" recognized in America?  What about at Cabal? 

Note: The link given is not to the full speech but to a short excerpt not much longer than the list itself, which sets the frame in which FDR makes his statement.

Comments

[pyrrho]

Cabal, I've noticed, is made up of centrists. Some of use lean a bit left and some right, but mostly we defy those categories to begin with.

e.g. to pick on you Shinobi... you seem to lean left, but it's pretty clear from reading your blog and noticing these things as I do that your liberalism, such as it is, is really libertarian in nature... and you believe in many principles often associated with conservativism.

Really, in a way, we have unrepresented political philosophies.

And if we were a real cabal, it would be to take to the streets as centrists "We Demand Moderation"! Not the "whatever you say"
type of centrist that finds the middle by looking at the extremes and averagine... more like opinionated moderates willing to have strong opinions, but also moored in reason. Not all reason leads to correct conclusions, but it does tend to make one... um, well, more reasonable.

I have many conservative principles at my heart, and they are mostly libertarian in nature, but not entirely. I was fine with bombing Libya, I support the right to own and discharge arms.

On that list, I understand an aguement that people have to work for their opportunities, that there is no right to "useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation". In a fundamental sense I recognize their can't be such a right in nature, even now. But I have come to realize that rights, as enumerated by mankind for mankind are about survival, about helping us survive, and in a condition worth living. Seen that way, how can we not have a right to gainful work? We do have such a right, and the responsibility to do the work follows.

I have to say that as one would probably assume from the post, I endorse these items of FDR's as rights.

[JD]

Alas, our agreement was too short lived. I am increasingly infuriated by the elevation of desires, wants, goals, ideals, etc ... to this sacred term of rights. The Patients Bill of Rights, The Gila Monster Bill of Rights, the NAMBLA Bill of Rights.

Frankly, though all of the items listed in the post sound good in theory, I see none of them as rights, and most of them best left to the private sector. Unfortunately, government finds a way, regardless of who occupies the White House or runs Congress, to continue to find ways to meddle in private affairs.

I am exhausted, just flew back from five days in LA, but thought I would throw my three cents on here really quick, without really pondering my thoughts.

1. Useful and remunerative job - great ideal, best done by the private sector. Government should only provide an environment in which business can prosper.

2. Right to earn enough for food, clothing, and recreation. Silly. Patently silly.

3. Right of the farmer - would that were true. With government becoming increasingly involved in pricing and specifications as to yields, planting, etc ... it appears this one has been taken to heart by the government. I do not agree with it, but the practical reality is that we have adopted this one.

4. Rights of businessman to trade in a free environment - agree with this one in principle. Kind of makes my point from earlier.

5. Right of every family to a decent home. Silly.

6. Adequate medical care. Opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health. Great in theory. Lousy in practice. We all have the "opportunity" to achieve and enjoy good health. We might not have the financial ability to purchase it, but we do have the opportunity. Once again, though laudable, this falls in my desires/ideals category, rather than rights.

7. Protections from the fears of old age, accident, life, etc ... The promise of a risk free society? No thank you, and certainly not a right.

8. Right to a good education. In my book, this is the closest one to a right on this list, and even then, I would still put it in the category of ideals rather than a right.

Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Remember, I am a red stater, and therefore an uneducated rube, incapable of nuanced thought, a conservative automaton. Anything after that eloquently simply phrase seems to be a selection of some social ideal or desire rather than a right that a human holds an inherent title to.

[pyrrho]

JD,

I'm enough of a rugged individualist myself to understand where you are coming from.

But the right to a decent home? I mean, why do we have ANY rights? Why not just say, "you have the right to try to bear arms", "you have the right to try to have a free press"... why do we secure any rights at all?

The answer to that will tell us about these other rights.

From my perspective, all rights are ideals... in the state of nature as philosophers like to call it, you have no rights you don't merely fight for yourself, which is to say, no rights at all. Why do you have a right even to your property? Why should I subsidize the protection of your second home through the police?

The answer, I think, has something to do with the survival of the nation, the species, and the way we want to live.

The right to gainful employment: that's a wierd thing to call a right... but that's just language, if someone is able and willing to work, we have to want them put to productive work, we need that for a strong society, just as much as we need the right to bear arms or the right to free speech.

Hope you'll have more to say on this... I really am an individualist so am actually starting, I think, from your position on this, but I've worked my way toward realizing we're building a nation and the things in this list are things we need for our nation.

When we talk about how we get them... I don't know about that.

[G-Do]

I'm going to snipe at semantics, here:

Can we agree that a right is a behavior the government can't hinder? Isn't that the traditional definition of what a "right" is, as in, what the Bill of Rights codifies?

The distinction between that sense of a "right" and what FDR, presumably, is describing is that FDR's rights are not rights at all - they are municipal responsibilities. He sat down and asked himself "what social conditions must a governing body guarantee to be ethical/optimal?" and came up with this list.

The reason for the split in the definition of "right," I think, is because when the founding fathers were dreaming this whole thing up - and they were working with the classical definition of a "right" - the question of municipal responsibilities wasn't so important. This is true because one, the founding fathers were much more concerned with building constitutional safeguards to keep power from centralizing, and two, at that time the government wasn't powerful enough to engender any national social policies. But by FDR's time, the federal government had acquired these powers, so the question raised itself, with help from lots of progressive lobbies eager to meddle with domestic policies. So we now have two notions of what a "right" is.

And while I dislike using the word "right" for the term "social responsibility," this doesn't mean we should scoff the proponents of social responsibility. Some social responsibilities are great! For example: the "right" to a fair wage, the "right" not to have to work a 16 hour work day, the "right" to work in a safe environment, etc. All the labor laws the progressives fought for back in the Industrial Revolution codify "rights" in FDR's sense, and we need them.

Thoughts?

[Winston Smith]

I think that’s well put, G-Do.
I do understand and am sympathetic to JD's libertarianism. His fear is that anything someone has a “right” to, will necessarily become someone else’s obligation to provide. But when G-Do frames the responsibility as a COLLECTIVE one (“municipal”) it makes more sense.

Producing educated citizens is so critical to democratic governance, we regard universal free education as something we’re collectively obligated to provide. That doesn’t mean we force people to become teachers. It means we devote resources to ensuring that education up to a certain level is widely available.

Likewise sometimes there are capable people who want paying work to do, and jobs that need doing. When FDR put the unemployed to work on useful projects, Americans not only got roads, bridges, conservation projects and theaters built, but people also had money to spend to help get a wrecked economy back on its feet. Not coincidentally, it probably also staved off a revolution of the have-nots against the haves.

[Chum]

In approaching this from a standpoint as to how government actually stands in the way of the societal ideals, here are some thoughts:

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

This needs to be modernized to include "services" since that is becoming our predominant job market, if it isn't already. Much is being made of two dynamics that are impacting the ability to find gainful work. They are outsourcing/off-shoring and migrant labor from Mexico and other Central/South American nations. Inactivity in addressing these areas could be considered detrimental to the availability of domestic jobs for Americans.

-The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;

The minmum wage is currently $5.15 per hour with the last increase in 1997. Here is a link to a study on the impact of this:

http://www.epi.org/content.cfm/issueguides_minwage_minwage

Many employers voluntarily pay more than this due to competition in the job market, but setting the bar so low that it becomes renumeratively repressive.

Recreation is provided for at public parks, libraries, etc. although they may not be readily accessible or of interest to all, but I don't think the government has any duty beyond existing programs to keep us entertained.

-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 Farm Bill passed a few years ago was over the top and was nothing more than a pork laden handout to mega-farms. Even with government subsidies the average family farm still has difficulty keeping their heads above the bill stack. To me, having a reliable food supply is of extreme importance to our national security. A more balanced approach is needed in this area.

-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;

Although continued deregulation is supposed to foster competition, the opposite is occuring in many areas. Many communities are feeling the benefits of Walmart's lower prices, but at what cost. Local businesses aren't the suppliers and many mom and pop fall by the wayside. Microsoft is another example of a company that set a standard then threw their weight around to ensure that competition couldn't penetrate their markets.

-The right of every family to a decent home;

The renumeration issue has much bearing the possibility of this occurring. The government does help low income families get into homes but on a very limited basis. There are many variables impacting mortgage costs and their availability, with the Fed possibly having as much bearing as any other. Right now, bubble talk aside, the home industry seem to be the segment of the economy that is keeping growth at their current levels.

-The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;

The 2nd part of this is a whole lifestyle discussion in itself, and I don't intend on going there. On the 1st part I take probably my most progressive stance than on any other social issue. There is no reason why a nation as rich as ours can't come up with a system, whether it be public/quasi/private, that can't figure out a way to provide health care for all. Maybe make it like the British legal system whereby the hypocondriacs and abusers get charged for overuse or abuse.

-The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;

Government provides for old age and unemployment, with limitations. I don't have much of a problem with either of these systems, although I know many who have been on unemployment and didn't look too hard for work (at 5.15 per hour I probably wouldn't either) and others worked under the table on the side while on unmployment (the same with some on Workers Comp).

Sickness was covered in the prior bullet and accident is really tough to pin down considering contributory causes and damage ranges. The tax system does make allowances for liability losses, I can't think of ways to expand on this.

-The right to a good education.

This should be a no-brainer. Anyone that thinks that all kids aren't owed a sound base education probably needs one themselves. The level of government involvement could be argued, but this is one area where we should have strict requirements concerning standards from the government, whether it be local, state, or federal (another large discussion topic in itself). Funding is another large topic that needs review under this item.

[Shinobi]

I've decided to give up catagorizing my beliefs and simply think what I think. That's youthful idealism for you. "BE REASONABLE!" will continue to be my political battle cry.

I don't really know what to say about this. I'm more practical than philisophical. While any of these ideas sound nice in theory it all depends on how you go about it. I mean sure, it would be nice if every family had a house. But it smacks of socialism at the same time. I like Winston's idea of diverting resources to aid a certain cause, but at the same time it depends on how those resources are used. It is very easy to do something with good intentions and end up making everything worse.

[pyrrho]

G-do,

well put, yes there is an important semantic issue. The right to bear arms is something the government is meant not to abridge, it's not expected to provide the arms itself, but this list is stuff the society is expected to secure as a basic infrastructure, at least according to FDR.

What obligations does a state have to its people? I think this list is a fair answer to that question.

shinobi,

sorry to pick on you, hopefully you say that my use of you as an example was meant to show the same thing... I agree you defy categories. I think we all do, though categories of belief can still be valid approximations for us in analyis.

But the philosophies I read here from cabal posters are an unrepresented, uncategorized type.

[JD]

I cannot believe that I am typing these words, but, Winston not only reprented my position fairly, he actually expressed my opinion far better than I had been able to do.

Shinobi, it only smacks of socialism because it would be one gigantic step towards socialism. A good start, if you would ...

I know this is straying a bit from the topic at hand, but I think I can tie it back in. Patience. One of my underlying beliefs is that we have evolved (read : stryaed) well beyond the concepts outlined in our Constitution. I do not dislike government, it has its role and performs admirably in many regards, supplying a national defense, they do collect taxes well, etc ... But the foundation of our system of governance was fairly clear as to what they expected the role of the federal government to be, and even more importantly, what it was not supposed to be. In my eyes, we have long long long since outgrown the role proscribed in our Constitution. As a society, we have simply grown to accept and expect this.

So, to tie it back into this post, though FDR's "rights" as outlined above may be desirable for a utopian type of society, to me, they simply represent a jumping off point for where our government willfully stepped outside of their role, as outlined in our Constitution.

I guess I am some right wing zealot extremist.

[pyrrho]

JD,

just for the record, I find your opinions quite reasonable and you'd make a poor zealot.

But you're right that we disagree.

I'll grant these are not "rights", as G-do and you have pointed out.

But I do think the government is about infrastructure and I don't know how you can have a decent national infrastructure without ensuring the things in that list.

I'm open to your point that some of them are just for private enterprise to supply, but then, it's the job of government to then enable that, as keeper of the shared national infrastructure.

[sweetchuck]

This is a very interesting conversation. I think many of the ‘rights’ listed are already provided for to some extent via minimum wage, social security, Medicaid… I don’t think meeting these obligations has to include socialism at all. It just requires a functional safety net. It sounds like JD longs for the good old days when you can do a lifetime of good work at 60 hours a week, be responsible, live in squalor, and retire into the streets. I know that is kind of an unfair characteristic, but it’s not the free market, hard work, self determinism, the good will of the boss, or any of that capitalist wet dream material that prevents it. It is government protections to a large degree. Perhaps if the free market talking points really worked we would need even less of a safety net. Perhaps if a rising tide lifted all boats, perhaps if tax cuts to the wealthy really trickled down… I have no doubt that removing the protections now in place, along with a abundant supply of immigrant workers who will take jobs ‘Americans won’t take’ as Bush puts it, I think that is the road to the Grapes of Wrath style wage slavery. Now I don’t know whether these should be called rights or what, but I think our country is wealthy enough that we can do this much. I don’t see any call for handouts, it’s the right to work, the right to EARN enough to have a decent life. Look at our government. Why is it ok to pay almost a half a trillion a year to secure us from outside threats, but it’s not ok to dedicate some funds to secure us from illness, and misfortune? It makes me think of a group of pioneers who will circle the wagons and fight together to protect ourselves from the savages, but if one of us accidentally spills our cup of water, on principal we will refuse to refill. We will not protect you from dying of thirst, only from dying at the hands of the savages.

[sweetchuck]

This topic is particularly dear to my heart today because I have my wrist in a splint after re-injuring it rock climbing Sunday. It all started on 9/7/01. I had just gotten out of college, moved in with my girlfriend who was in school and had no job (and who’s parent’s stopped supporting her because we were living in sin). I had a good supply of cash for the move and the transition to getting a job, I also had a good supply of debt from college. I broke my wrist (on my freaking skateboard like an idiot). So there I was, unemployed, broken, and we all know what happened 4 days later and how that affected the job market. I was not even able to do office work for 6 months, my savings were quickly depleted and my credit was ruined. My insurance ran out soon after, and my wrist has never really been the same (obviously since it is all wrapped up now). This is not a story about how the safety net saved me or failed me. I didn’t go on welfare, or Medicaid, I didn’t go to the food bank although I did skip meals at times because I was broke. This is just a story about how quickly it can all fall apart. There were times that I sure wished I had a right to work. I was willing to do anything I could (considering my injury).

[JD]

sweetchuck : I suppose that you are intentionally mischaracterizing my position so you can beat up a few strawmen. Hope you enjoyed doing so.

Where to begin ? First off, I work 60 hours a week, am fairly responsible for the most part, and have acquired a skill set such that I am able to earn a living that enables me to not live in squalor. Please keep in mind that I am a zealous advocate of retirees living in the streets, so yes, I am looking forward to those days.

The right to work? Is there anybody that is being denied the right to work? People can earn pretty much what they would like to earn, provided they have a skill, a talent, or a commodity that is valued in the marketplace.

How exactly should our governement invest in protecting us from "illness and misfortune" ?

[sweetchuck]

JD, I think the reason that much of the safety net was put in place was precisely because people were working 60 hour weeks, living in squalor and retiring into the streets. Without minimum wage, many people would be making less than that. Without the 40 hour work week we would be working longer with no overtime (I know I would). Without the government retirement insurance program, people who lived responsible lives and worked for businesses that went under would find themselves with no retirement (could that happen to you? Should the government intervene or just let the employees eat the turd?). Without Social Security how many seniors would be in the streets? I’m not saying we need a socialist government that babys everyone, but to live in a society that is so obsessed with security that my money is taken and used to develop robotic warriors and a wild array of killing machines, I sure wish they would put some of those security funds towards giving me a little security when my chips are down.

[Kav]

Sweetchuck, that was an unfair characterisation of JD's attitude. I understand that this is a topic dear to your heart, but play nice.

I haven't anything to add to this topic so far; coming from the UK I have no protected constitutional rights except those codified by the EU (strangely enough). That said I am finding it very interesting at the moment.

[Chum]

It sounds like JD is a proponent of the "ownership society". Personal responsibility is one thing, but the same opportunities don't present themselves to all individuals. Market driven economies provide limited numbers of engineering, professional, etc. jobs so that golden ring isn't out there for everyone. It used to be that good paying manufacturing jobs was the way for primary educated to enter the middle class, but this is no longer the case.

What Sweetchuck was facing with a mountain of education debt should not be glossed over in this discussion. It isn't just the students that are held prisoner for many years for wanting to get to a higher level, it is many of their parents. In my case I laid out $60,000 cash for my 2 girls to go to college, but I was only able to do this because of a good salary nd being divorced with not much social life. Many families don't have the luxury to send $800+ dollars a month to a University. They mortgage their future to try to set up their kids causing problems for later in life security. How much better off would I be with $60,000 to invest for 20 years before I can hopefully retire. Oh yeah, both of my kids have debt, with the youngest in quite deep because she went to a private university as opposed to a publc college for my oldest.

So many of these "rights" have impact on others. The above is one example, and you could say providing ample renumeration for farmers will kep money that could be used for retirement off of the table. One serious illness can be devastating to a family or individuals. Can a member of these families get into a good college?

Another related topic deals with affirmative action. Poor blacks start out at a serious disadvantage in many parts of the country. It's not that they can overcome their plight, but if you've ever ben in the areas where many of them are somewhat forced to live because the government doesn't do more to invest in their communities so they have at least hope. The free market has abandandoned these people to some degree. Why not have a Marshall Plan to help dig these folks out of their hell holes. It aint their kid's faults, so I think more should be done to change the dynamics in the hoods.

[sweetchuck]

JD, sorry if I mischaracterized your position. I may have interpreted “patently silly” incorrectly. Here is an article, it is somewhat of a smear on Tom Delay, but I point to it as what labor can be without the protections we have in place in America. Here is the site:

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/05/09/real.delay/

And here is a quote:
“Moved by the sworn testimony of U.S. officials and human-rights advocates that the 91 percent of the workforce who were immigrants -- from China, the Philippines, Sri Lanka and Bangladesh -- were being paid barely half the U.S. minimum hourly wage and were forced to live behind barbed wire in squalid shacks minus plumbing, work 12 hours a day, often seven days a week, without any of the legal protections U.S. workers are guaranteed, Murkowski wrote a bill to extend the protection of U.S. labor and minimum-wage laws to the workers in the U.S. territory of the Northern Marianas.”

Products made under these conditions bear the “Made in the USA” label on them. Obviously the free market does not prevent this, and obviously these skilled workers cannot “earn pretty much what they would like to earn”. I imagine if most of us woke up and found ourselves behind that barbed wire, deciding what role we would like our government to take, we would want to put in place many of the protections we are talking about now. Is that what the founding fathers had in mind? That’s not really a relevant question now is it? Interstate highways, preventative war, breast implants, sex change operations… it’s a different time now, and the founding fathers were wise enough to create a government that could adjust and adapt to a changing world they never could have envisioned to represent we the people who face a set of circumstances they never would have dreamed of.

[JD]

sweetchuck,

You are right, I did refer to the notion of there being some sort of inherent "right" to earn enough for adequate food, clothing, shelter, and recreation as being patently silly. I did so, because ... well ... it is patently silly. That does not translate to your assessment that I am a proponent of forced labor at excessive hours a week, living in squalor, and making old people live like street urchins.

Since we are/were discussing the role of our government in conferring "rights" to us, I frankly do not see how the working conditions in a 3rd world country have much bearing. But, for argument's sake, one might suggest that if these people were willing to take these positions, as bad as they may sound, apparently the jobs were better than their alternatives. I know that people will probably read this as an endorsement of the actions, which would not be tolerated in our country, but it is simply an assessment.

And yes, maybe these individuals are not capable of earning what they wish to earn. I would suggest that they are first off, not the skilled workers that you describe them to be. Secondly, I was referring to people in our country, not workers in a third world sweatshop, but you knew that. They could, however, immigrate to the United States, or anywhere else they would like, take advantage of any educational opportunities available to them, increase their marketable skills, and change jobs.

Chum,

I am neither a proponent or opponent of the ownership society. Having said that, given my choice, I would prefer to have done for myself, rather than have had the government do for me. If that makes me a proponent of the ownership society, so be it.

As I stated before, and continues to appear to be the case, we are really discussing ideals, some would argue utopian ideals, at least from a certain perspective. I have no problem with that being the ideal, but I absolutely reject the notion that these ideals are inherent rights.

[JD]

sweetchuck,

"Is that what the founding fathers had in mind? That’s not really a relevant question now is it? "

How can that not be relevant?! How can the written and spoken intent for the basis of our system of governance ever be irrelevant? Would you apply the same standard to the freedom of speech? Clearly, the Founders could not have had the internet and television in mind when they addressed the freedom of speech. Would you apply the same standard to the right to bear arms? They could not have envisioned a .357 Magnum at that time. Would you apply the same standard to the freedom of the press? Clearly they could not have envisioned the wall to wall news coverages in papers, television, radio, and the internet.

[pyrrho]

sweetchuck,

I believe in a right to work, and I even find it appropriate that "right to work" laws are actually the code for anti-union laws... that is specifically, laws that ensure non-union members can work in union shops and the like. There is a conservative and liberal component to this idea, and I would hope a strong centrist component.

I believe it would be in our best interest to ensure that anyone that wants to work for a day can go get work for the day, that will keep people from starving. Should it be a government office they go to? Well, that's not ideal, but better than nothing.

I just saw the start of JD's reply, and it's unfortunate that you did mis characterize his position, for while I can see you did it merely to highlight what you thought the consequences were, you attributed it to him as motive... this is the sort of tricky line we walk as anti-spinners with strong opinions. We have to provide contrast and clarity, that can require taking things to logical extremes (and performing questionable thought experiments), and yet you don't want to attribute that perspective to JD, I think. But if you really did, then I'll just say personally, I don't.

[pyrrho]

"Please keep in mind that I am a zealous advocate of retirees living in the streets, so yes, I am looking forward to those days."

lol.

Government protection from illness is called national healthcare.

[pyrrho]

JD,

oddly, I still think you and I could in fact meet minds on this. You see that list, know FDR, and know a lot of people would say the government has to step in. I'll admit I'm quite open to the government stepping in providing those, eh, "securities" itself... however, I'm even more open to other solutions.

Unless you, or someone, has a philosophy of absolutely no tampering with the social framework, then we have room to discuss how such securities can be provided, assuming those are good basic conditions in that list.

But I don't want to cop out, I think the government does need to take it's role more seriously, and do something to at least help the private sector provide these as ubiquitous conditions.

And as we've noted, many of the conditions are already met...

[pyrrho]

JD,

I for one do not question your heart or really the heart of anyone that is following logical principles of freedom.

But I fault a lack of realism. When we say someone has chosen their best alternative, I don't know that we have said terribly much, as alternatives are finite and also, controlled in various ways.

Also, "They could, however, immigrate to the United States, or anywhere else they would like, take advantage of any educational opportunities available to them, increase their marketable skills, and change jobs."

That's just not true, people can not immigrate whereever they like, due to cost and also due to law.

To me it seems there is a pretension in that sort of argument. If we have to pretend that a worker has limitless opportunity to get out of their situation, in order to justify the poverty of that situation, there is a problem.

We point to unemployed and say "they don't want to work", and that might be true if there were always an opportunity to work... but there is not, and the argument is not generally valid.

I would rather apply the same argument to the system as a whole... if there is no resources to employ a person in productive labor and provide security, then certainly those are just the facts. But the resources of the global economy exceed the opportunities of the Indonesian laberor, so the balance still need to go to the bottom level of society.

I would think work programs are the best way to do this, from a conservative (or even common sense) point of view... because these require labor prior to compensation. I don't understand the problem with that, while I understand the objection to cash entitlements.

[JD]

pyrrho,

Where to begin?

National healthcare. First off, I would question whether or not it would prevent illness (which is what sweetchuck advocated), though I recognize the importance of preventative medicine, in reducing rates of illness. Whether or not we could ever afford it as a society is an entirely different question, and as you probably suspect, I doubt that we could afford it. Seems to me that the Medicare system alone continues to grow at such a rate that it is beginning to put intense budgetary pressures on the Federal and State budgets. But, this is a tangent to the point at hand. Suffice it to say that I would be comfortable adding health care to the list of things that I do not consider to be a right.

Let me also acknowledge that in re-reading my prior post, I wholeheartedly acknowledge that my example about immigration is fatally flawed, and poorly chosen. I did a poor job of expressing a very convoluted thought that was floating around in my head. I would have been better served not responding to the example of third world sweatshops and forced labor while in a discussion about "rights" in America.

At certain points in time, with higher unemployment rates, I would agree with you that maybe not everybody that wishes to work are able to, and those times are unfortunate. However, I do not think that we will ever be at a point where there is 100% employment of all available labor, and from my rudimentary economics learning, 100% employment would not be ideal for the system as a whole. I do think that there is a percentage of the unemployed that for whatever reasons, pride, vanity, what have you, remain unemployed rather than taking a position that they consider beneath their station. By no means am I stating that this comprises a majority of the unemployed, but I would suggest that it is not an insignificant amount either.

I have no problem with work programs. A days work for a days wages never hurt anyone. Frankly, that can be done within the current system. Here in Indianapolis, as well as every other city I have ever been in, there are a good number of day labor employers that routinely are looking for additonal manpower. These might not be the jobs that people want as a career, but they can earn a days pay for a days work. I am not saying that one is unemployed because one wants to be unemployed. But, at the same time, all one has to do is to pick up the Sunday paper and go through the 20 pages of help wanted ads to see that there are jobs out there.

When I am elderly, I aspire to live in squalor. If not squalor, then France.

[sweetchuck]

JD: “Since we are/were discussing the role of our government in conferring "rights" to us, I frankly do not see how the working conditions in a 3rd world country have much bearing.”
I think you might have missed the fact that my example was not of a third world country, it was of a US territory governed by us. I think it is an interesting contrast, what makes working in the U.S. territory of the Northern Marianas different than working in the US? The main difference I see is the absence of the labor laws that provide us with many of these silly rights (or whatever you want to call them). Also, you may be able to walk into a factory, sit down at a sewing machine and bust out a Calvin Klein garment, but I sure would need some training. To me, that’s skilled labor. Sure these immigrants probably should have come to America, but when offered to move to a US territory, they probably didn’t think they would be moving to a sweatshop.
So, are they rights, or just fringe benefits of living in a country with certain labor protection laws? I’m not sure, but I am glad that these silly things are in place here. I still don’t think the free market would prevent this kind of mistreatment. I see no other force in place in the Northern Marianas besides free market capitalism.