Rights Defined: FDR's Economic Bill of Rights
70
What Is A Right
 | Amazon Price: $3.05 List Price: $7.99 |
 | Amazon Price: $5.00 List Price: $4.50 |
 | Amazon Price: $10.95 List Price: $1.50 |
 | Amazon Price: $7.90 List Price: $14.99 |
 | Amazon Price: $8.40 List Price: $14.99 |
 | Amazon Price: $3.00 List Price: $21.99 |
 | Amazon Price: $10.00 List Price: $17.00 |
 | Amazon Price: $9.99 List Price: $18.00 |
 | Amazon Price: $15.80 List Price: $25.00 |
How FDR's "Bill of Economic Rights" is A HUGE Contradiction
In the media, different people—such as politicians, pundits, and political commentators—engage in discourse concerning “rights”. Some say that human beings have a right to Life, Liberty, Property, and the Pursuit of Happiness. Others say that everyone has a right to things like healthcare, education, a home, and social security. What is, or is not, a right? What rights do people have, if any at all, and where do they come from?
“A ‘right’ is a moral principle defining and sanctioning a man’s freedom of action in a social context. There is only one fundamental right (all the others are its consequences or corollaries): a man’s right to his own life…The concept of a ‘right’ pertains only to action—specifically, to freedom of action. It means freedom from physical compulsion, coercion or interference by other men…The right to life is the source of all rights—and the right to property is their only implementation. Without property rights, no other rights are possible."1— “Man’s Rights,” The Virtue of Selfishness, 93.
This definition, by far, is the most accurate and the one that people must know and understand. All true rights that man possesses are merely extensions of his right to life. That means Life, Liberty, Property, and the Pursuit of Happiness all come from a man’s right to his own life. Property rights are, indeed, “the only implementation” of rights. A man owns his life. Since he owns his life, he owns the products of his life that he realizes through his own efforts—his property. If he is to own his life, and his property, he must be free to act, to think, and to work. In other words, he must have Liberty and be free to pursue his own happiness.
Freedom means absence of force. It means that government is to stay out of the way and may only interfere to protect individual rights from those who would initiate force.
Rights are an effect of Existence. Man has rights because he exists.
With this proper understanding of rights, one can judge what is and is not a right. When a politician or political commentator speaks of rights, one can know what is true and what is false.
Many years ago, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt (a.k.a. FDR) introduced the Economic Bill of Rights. It will now be demonstrated why the things that he claims as “rights”, such as healthcare, social security, and education, are not rights at all, but are devices to the destruction of rights altogether. These “rights” include:
(1) “The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation;”
One could easily refute this by saying, “who is to provide these jobs?”—such a question implies that if someone has a right to a job, then another must be forced to provide that job at the point of a gun. It means that a man’s need is a claim on the life and property of another, which is a serious contradiction. How can one’s rights be satisfied at the expense of the rights of others? They cannot. Therefore, there is no such thing as “the right to a useful and remunerative job”.
(2) “The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;”
Again, this is a violation of property rights for those who provide jobs and pay the wages. Not only do they have a right to offer someone a job or not, but they also have a right to decide how much they are willing to pay for the labor of their chosen employees. A wage is like any other transaction. Both parties must mutually agree to it and do not reach an agreement unless both benefit, or else it would not be. No force is involved. But if someone is required to pay for such a vaguely described “right”, force becomes the means to the ends of some and one’s rights are sacrificed to the “economic rights” of others.
(3) “The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;”
(4) “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;”
(5) “The right of every family to a decent home;”
In other words, some have rights while others do not. In order to secure these “economic rights” for some, the rights of others must be violated.
(6) “The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;”
At what cost? What about the rights of doctors, of nurses, or of any other healthcare provider? What about the rights of every single taxpayer who would be forced to pay for this so-called “right”? What if no one wanted to be a doctor? Could the government arbitrarily decide who it wanted to be a doctor and force him to practice medicine? This “right” means that doctors have no rights; it means that someone must provide healthcare for all Americans; and it means that someone must pay for someone else’s healthcare against his own will.
(7) “The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;” (i.e., Social Security, and the welfare state)
At what cost? Who is to be forced to pay for it?
(8) “The right to a good education.”2
What applies to healthcare also applies to education. (See "Education: Not a Right" by Evan G Rogers for a deeper analysis)
FDR argued that these rights were real and necessary for a modern, free society. What he did not realize or understand is that such “rights” do not exist and do not secure freedom, but slavery and tyranny via absolute dictatorship.
Things like healthcare and education are not rights. They are goods and/or services. To claim them as “rights” is to claim the lives and property of others, i.e., doctors and teachers. Social Security is not a right either and neither is a job. They are not because as so-called “rights” they are contradictions to the very nature of rights.
Americans have two choices. They may either choose slavery and tyranny via the State, or they may choose freedom and Liberty via individual rights, i.e., Life, Liberty, Property, and the Pursuit of Happiness. Only time can tell what course will be taken. America is already far down that terrible road that Hayek called serfdom and Rand called statism, but it is not too late. There is still hope for the nation if people will finally choose to think with an active mind and change course. There is still time for Liberty.
1. Rand, A. (1965). The Virtue of Selfishness. New York: New American Library.
2. Second Bill of Rights - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. (n.d.).Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Retrieved June 5, 2011, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seco
CommentsLoading...
Thank you, RedmanBrendan. I am neither a conservative or a liberal. Neither side is right. They both miss the mark entirely.
FDR also said, " In the truest sense freedom cannot be bestowed; it must be erned."
Ramsey Clark said, "A right is not what someone gives you; it's what no one can take from you."
I like your thinking but not all your conclusions. Good hub!
GNelson, thanks for commenting.
That is another quote of FDR's that I completely disagree with. I disagree with his philosophy as well as his politics. Rights, or freedom, exist because we exist. It is the law of identity. Man is a rational animal with one primary characteristic being volition. Therefore, he must be free.
An ought cannot be derived from an is. This is a famous objection to meterialist philosophy (like Ayn Rand but it was being directed at Thomas Hobbes) made by David Hume.
There is no logical connection when one claims that something should be this way based on the way something is. Tomatoes are red. Therefore it is immoral to paint tomatoes blue. That is what your version of rights amounts to.
You really should read some political philosophy other than Ayn Rand. Locke and Nozick are both libertarians and they would laugh at the simplicity of Rand.
Then there is Rousseau, Kant and Rawls who base their ideas of rights on autonomy. I'm guessing you haven't even considered that definition.
Robephiles,
Do you even know where Rand says rights come from? Of course what I wrote was an oversimplification. (My hubs need to appeal to an audience of a scope of my choosing.) Rights are derived from identity. Because man is a rational animal, and one of his other main characteristics is volition, he is free to think and act because it is his nature. He is free to think and act because that is apart of his identity.
Her arguments are not "something should be this way based on the way something is", rather, it is because it is. That is the law of identity. Painting a tomato blue in no way violates it's identity because it is still a tomato.
There are three irreducible primaries upon which Objectivism stands: existence, identity, consciousness.
Talking about autonomy: you must not know who Ayn Rand was or what Objectivism is.
Have you even studied anything by Rand other than maybe some sound bites or quotes?
I reject anything by Kant, or Rawls (I don't know much about Rousseau, so I will leave him out) because their philosophies are contradictory. I do like John Locke though.
Robephiles,
I forgot to thank you for reading and commenting. I appreciate your comments and your points are noted; however, I disagree. Glad to see that you took the time to read. Thank you!
Yeah, I double checked John Locke's political philosophy. They are in fact, incredibly similar. Not much different, except, it could be and is argued, that Locke derived many of his ideas about natural law, and social contract theory, from his faith. That presents one flaw that partially invalidates his political theory. Rand's is very similar (with some differences)but is purely derived from reason. In other words, it is entirely objective.
As other philosophers have pointed out, Locke's Philosophy has several contradictions. Rand's has several criticisms as a result of misinterpretation (which happens with every radical philosophy) which she answers quite clearly, but most critics choose to ignore those answers.
There is one thing that you said that is also irritating me and it is the fact that you said that Rand was more "simple" than Locke. If by simple you mean clearer then I would argue that is a strength that her philosophy has over Locke's. She is very clear and straight forward (which is one thing that I love about her) but that in no way means that her ideas are any less valid or complex--as if complexity is any kind of rational standard of validity--nor does it mean that she is more "simple".
Locke and Rand have superficial similarities just as Rand and Nietzsche have superficial similarities. One key difference between Rand and Locke is that Locke actually had some consideration for the idea of Democracy. Both Democratic and Republican considerations (I mean both these terms in the philosophical sense not in relation to political parties) exist side by side in Locke. His main concern was that there needed to be a protection of individual liberties not that the rights of the individual somehow trumped the good of society completely. Locke even mentions that an individual who takes more than he needs from society is violating their agreement within the social contract. These are HUGE differences between Rand and Locke.
All political philosophy has contradictions because the idea of the existence of a state and the idea of complete individual freedom are naturally contradictory ideas. The whole point of every philosophical problem such as "the mind body problem" or "the conflict between the right and the good" is that there are essential contradictions that need to be resolved within these problems somehow. A philosopher who can resolve these problems with the minimal amount of contradiction is considered successful but one who simply throws themselves behind a number of ideological principles blindly (like Rand) is merely denying the contradictions not resolving them.
Rand has never satisfactorily answered any of the four big objections to her philosophy and neither have any of her followers. They are:
1. The is ought fallacy
A moral ought cannot be derived from an is. (Hume) Just because something is true does not mean it ought to be a certain way. Rape is a natural occurring phenomenon but it is not judged moral. It is also like saying that because somebody has the ability to do something then they should do it if it benefits you. Thrasymacus in Plato's Republic argues that "justice is in the interest of the stronger." This is essentially what Rand argues though she then insists that a capitalist system is "moral". She never gives any reason for this other than the fact that it is "the most free" but anarchism is pretty free too and she gives no reason for preferring her night watchman state over the anarchism.
2. False Dichotomy
Rand argues there are only two choices "Pure capitalism" or "pure socialism". This just isn't true. Every developed country in the world right now has a mix of capitalism and socialism in its system. Her novel Atlas Shrugged is very similar to Karl Marx in that she argues that if you let a little Socialism in then it is a straight shot to Communism. Marx believed that history was going inevitably toward communism and Rand seemed to agree that this would happen unless humanity embraced her philosophy. They both have been proven wrong by post World War II history.
3. Humanist Objections to Egoism
Bishop Butler and David Hume both objected to egoism on the grounds that it was contradictory to human nature. Hume rejected a materialist view of ethics (like Hobbes but it just as easily applies to Rand) because of the is / ought problem but he based his own ethics on basic intuitions. This is the basis of modern consequentialist ethics and most ethical thought in general. Bishop Butler said that we should take into account human capacity for empathy and that egoism was false simply because we cared about other people. Egoism goes is a circle. It argues that all human motives are selfish even seemingly altruistic ones. If somebody objects by presenting an act that somebody did altruistically just because they "felt" it was the right thing to do, the egoist simply says "the feeling itself is selfish. They did it to feel good about themselves." This is a logical fallacy called begging the question. Rand herself finds empathy to be irrelevant. This is probably why in her notebooks she called William Hickman, a man who brutally murdered a 12 year old girl in 1927, her perfect model of a self-interested man.
4. Kantian objections to Egoism
It is part of Immanuel Kant's ethics (which are based on reason and therefore by your claim completely objective just like Rand's) that human beings should be treated as not means to an end but as ends in themselves. Kant is basing his ethics on the idea that every single human being has intrinsic value. Rand says human beings have rights based on their consciousness and ability to reason. This is just like Kant, he considers reason the criteria why humans have rights and animals do not, but there is a HUGE contradiction in Rand's philosophy that points out the key difference between her and Kant. Kant states that when I claim that I as a person am intrinsically valuable I am automatically affirming the value of others as well. If the reason that I have intrinsic value is because I have consciousness and the ability to reason that applies to everybody else as well. To make a distinction between my own value and another's is an arbitrary distinction. By this completely objective criteria based solely on reason self-interest is immoral and treating others as ends in themselves is moral. Somebody might say that it is not an arbitrary distinction to say that I value my interests over others because if I am smarter or stronger or more talented than them then I have a right. Fine, let's go with that. Then why does Rand say a use of force is immoral? She says it in her philosophy, I won't argue there, but where does she justify it. She doesn't. In fact, I believe that Rand only truly believed that force was immoral when used by that state. I think she was fine and dandy when it was used by individuals. Why else would she admire a brutal murderer like William Hickman so much?
I have never seen such a misrepresentation of philosophy as I have seen in your last comment. Most of your points about Rand are straw-man arguments. None of your criticisms are a fair representation of any of her philosophy.
She did say that Society and Democracy have proper roles. Democracy is perfectly acceptable, e.g., when choosing leaders and representatives. "Society" is merely a number of individuals who interact with one another. That social interaction is entirely necessary for the self-interests of all individuals.
Concerning your other ridiculous assertions and outright misrepresentations on her position concerning force, she actually says:
"Whatever may be open to disagreement, there is one act of evil that may not, the act that no man may commit against others and no man may sanction or forgive. So long as men desire to live together, no man may initiate—do you hear me? no man may start—the use of physical force against others.
"To interpose the threat of physical destruction between a man and his perception of reality, is to negate and paralyze his means of survival; to force him to act against his own judgment, is like forcing him to act against his own sight. Whoever, to whatever purpose or extent, initiates the use of force, is a killer acting on the premise of death in a manner wider than murder: the premise of destroying man’s capacity to live.
"Do not open your mouth to tell me that your mind has convinced you of your right to force my mind. Force and mind are opposites; morality ends where a gun begins. When you declare that men are irrational animals and propose to treat them as such, you define thereby your own character and can no longer claim the sanction of reason—as no advocate of contradictions can claim it. There can be no “right” to destroy the source of rights, the only means of judging right and wrong: the mind.
"To force a man to drop his own mind and to accept your will as a substitute, with a gun in place of a syllogism, with terror in place of proof, and death as the final argument—is to attempt to exist in defiance of reality. Reality demands of man that he act for his own rational interest; your gun demands of him that he act against it. Reality threatens man with death if he does not act on his rational judgment; you threaten him with death if he does. You place him in a world where the price of his life is the surrender of all the virtues required by life—and death by a process of gradual destruction is all that you and your system will achieve, when death is made to be the ruling power, the winning argument in a society of men.
"Be it a highwayman who confronts a traveler with the ultimatum: “Your money or your life,” or a politician who confronts a country with the ultimatum: “Your children’s education or your life,” the meaning of that ultimatum is: “Your mind or your life”—and neither is possible to man without the other."
Galt’s Speech, For the New Intellectual, 133.
"A rational mind does not work under compulsion; it does not subordinate its grasp of reality to anyone’s orders, directives, or controls; it does not sacrifice its knowledge, its view of the truth, to anyone’s opinions, threats, wishes, plans, or “welfare.” Such a mind may be hampered by others, it may be silenced, proscribed, imprisoned, or destroyed; it cannot be forced; a gun is not an argument. (An example and symbol of this attitude is Galileo.)"
“What Is Capitalism?” Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, 17.
So as you can see, force, whether committed by governments OR by individuals is immoral according to Rand.
I have plenty more for you concerning that one. And I do not know where you are getting this "false dichotomy" between "pure capitalism" and "pure socialism" because of all that I have read by Rand (Atlas Shrugged, Virtue of Selfishness, Capitalism: the unknown ideal, Philosophy: who needs it, Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology) not once do I recall reading about such a dichotomy. She does write that we have a choice between freedom and Statism and that we are moving closer and closer to Statism (in fact, she said that we would most likely not transition into "pure socialism", but fascism).
Concerning Anarchy: she abhors anarchy. Anarchy is not freedom and she never had anything good to say about it mainly because it allows men to initiate force against others without being stopped by a government. Chaos, fear, disorder, and the constant violation of rights would be the norm.
Concerning the "is"-"ought" dichotomy:
"It is only an ultimate goal, and end in itself, that makes the existence of values possible. Metaphysically, life is the only phenomenon that is an end in itself: a value gained and kept by a constant process of action. Epistemologically, the concept of “value” is genetically dependent upon and derived from the antecedent concept of 'life.' To speak of 'value' as apart from 'life' is worse than a contradiction in terms. “It is only the concept of ‘Life’ that makes the concept of ‘Value’ possible.”
"In answer to those philosophers who claim that no relation can be established between ultimate ends or values and the facts of reality, let me stress that the fact that living entities exist and function necessitates the existence of values and of an ultimate value which for any given living entity is its own life. Thus the validation of value judgments is to be achieved by reference to the facts of reality. The fact that a living entity is, determines what it ought to do. So much for the issue of the relation between 'is' and 'ought.'"
“The Objectivist Ethics,” The Virtue of Selfishness, 17.
More about her ethics and the is-ought dichotomy:
http://www.atlassociety.org/ought-dichotomy
I am not even going to take any more time here and bother addressing your William Hickman questions. Since your completely misrepresenting Objectivism, no rational discussion is possible and I will not discuss philosophy with someone so intellectually dishonest.
I will also not approve anymore of your comments unless you can fairly represent Rand and Objectivism and have legitimate criticisms and good questions.
Thank you, sir, for commenting.
One final thought,
I have changed my mind and will address the William Edward Hickman and Ayn Rand question you raised.
First, read and think upon this discussion forum (especially the comments by Dismuke, Burgesslau, and Fred Weiss):
http://forum.objectivismonline.net/index.php?showt
I will first quote Dismuke concerning a very dishonest article (http://www.michaelprescott.net/hickman.htm) about the whole issue:
"To summarize - that article drops several bits of very important context.
1. The fact that the journal entries were PRIVATE, not intended for publication and, therefore, the contents were not written for the purpose of being objective to any audience other than Ayn Rand's own eyes.
2. The entirety of Ayn Rand's explicit philosophy which was consistent across volumes of works written over the span of many decades - including her philosophy's contempt for those who initiate force.
3. The fact that Ayn Rand herself dismissed it all as probable "idealizing."
4. The fact that, Ayn Rand, unlike the author of the article, did not equate self-interest with "walking across corpses" and, therefore, did not regard an out-of-context admiration for certain attributes of a brutal murderer's statements and demeanor as having possible negative implications for a morality of self-interest worthy of giving serious consideration to in the mental exercise the journal entry documents."
Next, I will quote BurgessLau:
"Dismuke, generally speaking, you have accurately portrayed the situation. You have done an excellent job of detection, working from that author's dishonest writing.
I have read the Journals, as the subject of a six-month long study group that our local Objectivist Story Tellers conducted.
The point to keep in mind is the purpose of the journals: to give Ayn Rand a place where she can put her thoughts -- mostly intended, once they were thoroughly examined, to appear in works of fiction -- down on paper, as an aid in her own development. Her journal entries make crystal clear that she thought the crime committed was terrible. But what she noticed, she says, is that a big part of the public reaction to the criminal was not his crime (others had done as bad) but his apparently forthright, standup manner. The mob, she observed, hated him more for his apparent independence than for his bestial behavior.
It helps too to keep in mind Ayn Rand's definition of art: the recreation of the elements of reality according to the values of the artist. Ayn Rand picked an element -- one man's standup behavior -- and noticed a connection to another element -- a mindless mob reaction -- and began to think about that connection abstracted from its original, ghastly historical circumstances. She was not a naturalistic author, which perhaps is the fiction-writing style of the author of the diatribe against her.
For many Objectivist intellectuals, The Journals of Ayn Rand is worth a slow, steady, thoughtful reading, perhaps a few pages a day over the course of a year or so. They are just what you said: a journal. They were not a diary or running sociological analysis of crime in Los Angeles or any other subject that fascinates others.
Reading her journals, with full context retained, increased my admiration for Ayn Rand. "
All I have to say is Amen. Need I say more?
Oh, and a little video on the is-ought dichotomy:
cbl
Philosophy should be left with the Ancient Greeks, Romans, and college students. Philosophy leads to endless debate which seems to have poked its head out in the comments.
What the country needs is a reboot, just like when your computer goes lame.
The question is then, how do you reboot the country. Start from the premise that mostly everything that is in place today is wrong, or could have been implemented better.
The voters need to release themselves from their parties, and make CANDIDATEs of both parties work for their vote.
Don't allow politicians to nest, spending their entire life in the same office.
Incumbnets should only be allowed to run on their record of accomplishments, and passing bills and sponsoring legislation is not an accomplishemt if it didn't help the people.
If a first time candidate for an office is elected, then come election time this is now an incumbent. So incumbents only last if they accomplish something for the people. If they can't accomplish something because of party differences, then both sides won't get elected.
This is like poker, the games ends for you when your bluff loses the big hand.
Blind Party Loyal is a big problem. Neither party is for the middle class, and that is the class that they both prey on and it is also the class that is shrinking into the class below it.
It is the middle class that made America powerful.
my opinion...
Thank you, OpinionDuck for your opinion.
RedmanBrendan 11 months ago
Quite an in-depth analysis, I enjoyed it! I get into a lot of debates at work over this (I work with some eh..we'll say very far right conservatives, and I'm a moderate), and this gives me a lot more perspective on both sides.