Commentary on FDR’s “Economic Bill of Rights”

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.

Here FDR cleverly forgets “property", as in “life, liberty, and property.” The ability to perform actions in the world and to retain the results of those actions is the concept of property, and maintaining life and liberty are subsequent rights needing property as a pre-existing condition, FDR attempts to allege that the government can continue to protect life and liberty while destroying their foundation.

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.

Fallacy of disambiguation: Certainly it is not true that anyone has been deprived of equality of attempting to pursue happiness – well, notwithstanding those affected by the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act (which raised prices of imports in a depression and depressed trade,) the Fed’s contraction of the money supply by 1/3, (raising prices for consumers) the imposition of myriad regulations on business, (raising prices for consumers) and price stabilization and farm agricultural limits (raising prices for consumers,) the government’s role in creating the great depression itself, and the death toll of WWII. It is not really very nice to create a massive problem yourself, and then claim a mandate to fix it by destroying capitalism. What FDR means here is that people have not been achieving happiness equally, not that they do not possess equality in its pursuit..

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.” [Vernon v Bethell, 2 Eden 113 (1762) English court case ] People who are hungry and out of a job are the stuff of which dictatorships are made.

A dictatorship of the proletariat, with FDR at the head.

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.

Self-evident for whom? Provided by whom?

Among these are: The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation;

Provided by whom? The right to something that cannot be found lying around on the ground necessarily implies that someone else will have to provide it – someone who apparently does not possess the same rights as everyone else.

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

Provided by whom? What is “adequate”? They apparently did not possess these rights while FDR was imposing tariffs, price stability, and paying farmers not to grow crops, as artificially raising the price of goods in the marketplace is the antithesis of the ability to buy adequate consumer goods. After 12 years of raping end consumers with his social policies, now he thinks they are “entitled” to them?

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

Aristotle observed that a thing cannot be itself and something else at the same time. FDR apparently needs to read more Aristotle, as he is promising high-priced scarce goods to farmers, and low-priced plentiful goods to consumers.

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 purpose of economics is to supply end-consumers with goods. If a natural monopoly is good at this, there is no harm in having one. “Unfair” to whom? Freedom from what “domination”? Every businessman, no matter how inefficient, has the right to trade free from nasty competition that might put him out of business by supplying low-priced goods to consumers?

The right of every family to a decent home;

Provided by whom? The right of every homebuilder to be enslaved to provide labor to build the homes every family has a right to, and every lumber-yard owner and lumberjack the right to supply these materials?

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

Provided by whom? If I have a right to medical care – a highly-trained profession – then doctors must have a commensurate “right” to work for free to provide it for me.

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

To be provided by enacting a giant Ponzi scheme that now consumes more taxes than federal income taxes, and insures that no one can actually use the time-value of money to provide an adequate retirement.

All of these rights spell security.

Provided from each according to his ability, to each according to his need.