A 'New' Bill of Rights
Many here would agree that people should have the right to a good education.
President Franklin D. Roosevelt,, [FDR], proposed in 1944 some other rights that he believed were basic. He called it a new Bill of Rights. (Perhaps FDR was influenced by a platform set forth in 1912 by his cousin, former President Theodore Roosevelt.)
As you may know, FDR was the most-popular president in U.S. history. He was elected for four terms!
A summary of the rights FDR seriously-proposed in what he spoke of as a second new Bill of Rights - as interpreted by Patrick J. Austin, are listed as follows:
The right to work, under just and favorable conditions,
with the right to form and join trade unions.
The right to social security, including social insurance.
The right to a family life, including paid parental leave and the
protection of children.
The right to an adequate standard of living, including
adequate food, clothing and housing, and the continuous
improvement of living conditions.
The right to health, specifically the highest attainable
standard of physical and mental health.
The right to an education, including free universal primary
education, generally available secondary education and
equally accessible higher education. The government can make college education free.
The right to participation in cultural life.
You may wonder, why do I bring this up at this time?
It seems to me that every person interested in Political Theory may find a definition of good government to be of relevance. I learned this from my teacher and colleague,the brilliant philosopher, Robert S. Hartman.
When Ethics is applied to Political Theory this definition is obtained:
A good government is one that continuously improves the quality-of-life of its citizens.
Currently, in the year 2022, one of the major political parties is devoted to that and is doing that; the other offers hate, fear, and division. As a supplement to the first Bill of Rights located early in a document that begins with the words We the people, in order to form a more perfect union is suggested by FDR a year before he died and thus did ot have time to arrange for his new Bill of Rights be made into legislation. Google his eight points; check it out. I reprinted the gist of them above to provide ideas as how to upgrade and improve the quality of life for inhabitants of the United States in the future. Just some ideas upon which to reflect, and eventually put into action, in case any of you want to advocate these, or campaign for these, or run for office and thus be in a position to implement any of these human rights.
How do you feel about this? Any comments or questions? Any constructive ideas to make the concepts more of a reality?
President Franklin D. Roosevelt,, [FDR], proposed in 1944 some other rights that he believed were basic. He called it a new Bill of Rights. (Perhaps FDR was influenced by a platform set forth in 1912 by his cousin, former President Theodore Roosevelt.)
As you may know, FDR was the most-popular president in U.S. history. He was elected for four terms!
A summary of the rights FDR seriously-proposed in what he spoke of as a second new Bill of Rights - as interpreted by Patrick J. Austin, are listed as follows:
The right to work, under just and favorable conditions,
with the right to form and join trade unions.
The right to social security, including social insurance.
The right to a family life, including paid parental leave and the
protection of children.
The right to an adequate standard of living, including
adequate food, clothing and housing, and the continuous
improvement of living conditions.
The right to health, specifically the highest attainable
standard of physical and mental health.
The right to an education, including free universal primary
education, generally available secondary education and
equally accessible higher education. The government can make college education free.
The right to participation in cultural life.
You may wonder, why do I bring this up at this time?
It seems to me that every person interested in Political Theory may find a definition of good government to be of relevance. I learned this from my teacher and colleague,the brilliant philosopher, Robert S. Hartman.
When Ethics is applied to Political Theory this definition is obtained:
A good government is one that continuously improves the quality-of-life of its citizens.
Currently, in the year 2022, one of the major political parties is devoted to that and is doing that; the other offers hate, fear, and division. As a supplement to the first Bill of Rights located early in a document that begins with the words We the people, in order to form a more perfect union is suggested by FDR a year before he died and thus did ot have time to arrange for his new Bill of Rights be made into legislation. Google his eight points; check it out. I reprinted the gist of them above to provide ideas as how to upgrade and improve the quality of life for inhabitants of the United States in the future. Just some ideas upon which to reflect, and eventually put into action, in case any of you want to advocate these, or campaign for these, or run for office and thus be in a position to implement any of these human rights.
How do you feel about this? Any comments or questions? Any constructive ideas to make the concepts more of a reality?
Comments (44)
IMO, a "good government" is one that enables its citizens to improve their own quality of life, as well as the lives of those around them; in a sort of volunteerism sense. A "good government" is not in charge of that process, but ensures that the ability to self-actualize is protected, made possible and sacred.
I personally agree with the sentiment(s) of your post. But I'd like to see more of a focus on encouraging individuals to create their own realities, for themselves. That is (in my estimation) what a "good government" is empowered to do.
So, all the rights listed are not really rights, they're agreements between at least two people who agree that they should have what the 'rights' proffer. They're expressions of want, often of need, but there is nothing in nature that suggests humans should have these rights any more than any of the flora and fauna do.
Governments ought to do what their citizens want them to do. If that is to secure rights, then the government should do that. If that is to go to war, then so be it. If the government is intended by its voters to provide education, free or not-so-free, then they should do that. If the government must take revenue to provide services, and since they can't tax the Russians or the English, they'll tax you. However, governments have a way of accruing power, mostly through the control of armies, natural resources, legislation, and taxes. They naturally grow because their citizens keep asking them to do more for the sake of personal 'rights' and security, which usually means that the government needs more information, not only about nefarious individuals but also about you. This is often a mistake because eventually the government begins to tell you what is and isn't yours to do, to acquire, and to sustain.
Remember, the government is for you, and should do what you want it to do. Nowadays, it's the other way around. Governments sustain themselves more than they sustain, champion, or build up the individuals they govern.
Nice topic and presentation. :up:
Quoting Marvin Katz
Please tell me which country has such a government and I'm going to live there! :grin:
(I don't know what country do you live in, but in Greece, where I live, the quality-of-life of the citizens is the last thing our politicians think these days. They can hardly think even about the life of the citizens, in general! The only country that I know and I about which I can say they it is near to the above "utopia", is Sweden. But it was a long time ago. I don't know if this still holds toray.)
What happened to Greece? It was doing so well - the epicenter of philosophy, culture, art, and so on - and now it's the sick man of Europe. :snicker:
Time to pull up your socks you Greeks! Restore your past glory! Reclaim the title of world leader! Go Greece, go!
Anyone who believes people have a right to such things ought to start providing them immediately. Youre violating someones rights when you dont. Personally I dont think anyone owes anyone else a living, so do not see them as rights, and especially as rights worthy of government protection.
Thank you very much, Bret, for your fine contribution! What you are suggesting is actually more Applied Ethics!! You are talking about people helping people. This is Ethics. The reasons for my saying this are made evident in these papers (or booklets) which spells out in more detail what I mean. Check i t out. Read them over:
http://www.myqol.com/wadeharvey/PDFs/THE%20STRUCTURE%20OF%20ETHICS.pdf
Also, more background for the new paradigm for ethics is found here. q.v.
BASIC ETHICS: a systematic approach (2014)
http://www.myqol.com/wadeharvey/PDFs/BASIC%20ETHICS.pdf and also here:
LIVING WELL: How Ethics helps us flourish (2015) 23pp.
http://www.myqol.com/wadeharvey/PDFs/LIVING%20WELL-How%20ethics%20helps%20us%20flourish.pdf
In your response you have in a constructive way improved upon what I was attempting to convey. You are emphasizing the moral concept Autonomy, something which is also done in that very-brief last chapter of BASIC ETHICS.
So thanks again for your insight.
I know how you feel Mediterranean brother. Here in Spain we live exactly the same situation.
I only see politics as a complex ownership. Most of the people who reach powerful positions - such as a ministry - are there for private issues and affairs. I am laughing right now because the PM of my country just approved five laws and he said: more laws for the majority!... Jesus. I want to ask him what is the "majority" according to his reality.
Government jobs: Make yourself rich by any and all means available, legal and illegal. While you're at it ... can you also please build hospitals, schools, roads, etc. :snicker:
I couldn't have explained it better... That's how politicians work and interact with the citizenship.
Radix omnium malorum est cupiditas. Sorry folks, it is what it is!
True. We agree on that. That is why I advocate that an administration ought to systematically inquire and learn, and publicize, what the democratic consensus is among its constituents! Let's find out what the people really want -- and let's insist that if it's ethical and moral the government is to provide it.
The U.S. Constitution, our guiding document here in the USA, claims that we have rights: the Right to a free press, the right to freedom of Assembly, to petition, and to protest. Etc. If you want to speak of our Rights as "interests," that's okay with me -- as long as we know, and are aware, that we are to pursue our true self-interest. What that is one will find spelled out in the manuscripts to which links are offered in my response to Bret B. See those writings cited.
We are, I would argue, part of the fauna. ...Perhaps we are the funniest of all.. [Unfortunately, some are human preditors. In 2016, one of those was elected tto the highest office. In another discussion here at the Forum, on theory of Ethics, I described how to recognize such bad characters, and distinguish them from those of good character.]
It turns out that what people really want is a Quality Life. What that entails, what it means in detail, is spelled out in the STRUCTURE OF ETHICS document, which see. A safe-to-open link to a pdf document is available. See the link in my reply to Bert.
Roman Empire occuppation, followed by 400 years occupation and under the Ottoman yoke. Greece was living in a Middle Eastern kind of culture, when Europe was enjoying Renaissance and then Enlightenment, with artistic creation, in every field, reaching at its peak!
This is what happened to Greece.
But still, after Greece's libaration from the Ottomans, there has been a long period of considerable cultural development, with very distinguihed politicians and men of letters. Distinguihed people from Europe helped a lot in that. Aalso, the Royal Regiment that was established always maintained the quality of life to a notable level; they really cared about Greece and the Greeks. Then, there was a 7-year junta regime that has been responsible for a steep cultural downfall of the country, mainly because of the strict censorship it imposed and its total lack of cultural standards and esp. the artistic ones. And after that the Royal Regiment was abolished and things started to go downhill, esp. in the political field.
Well, I'm not surprised. So many years under Franco ... At least you still have your Royal family. I don't know however if that helps and how much. For us it helped a lot!
Quoting javi2541997
Exactly. This is what they are really good at.
Democracy here is an illusion. The only say in the affairs that citizens have is their vote, deciding between totally incompetent parties. This cannot be called Democracy. Democracy alss involves referendums on important matters for the country. The last referendum we had in Greece was in 1974, about keeping or abolishing the Royal Regime!! And, as a really stupid, low-IQ country, we selected the second option!
Quoting javi2541997
I don't know even what does that mean! :grin:
Yes, at least the Royal family achieve stability. No more civil wars because the king the chief of the Army. There are some sectors of society who are not happy to live in a monarchy. But they are not big enough.
Quoting Alkis Piskas
Yes, same. Our last referendum was in 1978 when the Spaniards voted for "democracy" but we never had the opportunity to vote about joining NATO or European monetary system. I even think that our national chambers do not matter at all because the European Commission and the European Central Bank have a lot of power in our domestic issues.
Well, it is a complex world and our nations clearly lost sovereignty when they joined European Union.
Thank you for the links. I have downloaded "The Structure Of Ethics" PDF, and will read through it now. I am definitely open to learning more about this line of thinking. So, I appreciate your guidance on doing just that.
I'm sorry to hear that. I hope Greece isn't damaged beyond repair and also maybe its time to pass on the torch to Europe and the US. Greece takes a well-deserved holiday, they've done enough for humanity. :smile:
Exactly. These are very important matters for a country, esp. because they refer to more or less permanent situations.
When I was a student in Switzerland, I was present to two referendums: 1) If people wanted to pay tolls for the maintenance of a new highway or accept an increase in gasoline and 2) Whether people wanted foreigners to stay in the country or not. This is what I can call "Democracy". People deciding on important matters of their country.
In ancient Greece, Athenians who retained political rights participated in important decisions of the city-state of Athens:
The word "Democracy" comes from Greek "Democratia", from demos (= commune) + kratein (= govern, reign). People govern. That's why Greece has been known as the cradle of Democracy.
Quoting javi2541997
I don't know what the consequences were for you of the transition from pesetas to euros. For us, they were quite bad. For a very long time, people could not realize the value of one euro and think in terms of the new currency because the old currency, drachma, equaled 1/340 = 0.003 euros! But I guess the same happened to other countries with a similar old-currency-to-euro rate.
Thanks for your concern. Indeed, Greece is a holiday place. It always has been. but that's all it is today. Yet, this is for tourists to enjoy, not the Greeks themselves. They do not even enjoy the money coming in from tourism ...
As for the "torch", I'm afraid it has already been passed to Europe and the US since a long time ago!
FDR in his presidential role was only playing catch-up with humanists/socialists. There is no example of 'new,' in any of the suggestions put forward in the OP as concepts of what basic 'human rights' should be. These were all implied by very ancient ideas such as justice and equality. People have been fighting and dying for such human rights since homo sapiens discovered that working together was more beneficial than competing for every resource, with every other individual homo sapien alive, and every other creature alive for that matter. The problem is that the Darwinian rules of evolution compel many people to gather as much as they can for themselves and their loved ones, protect all they have with every means of defence they can muster, and threaten all 'outsiders' with extreme violence if they come too close or become a perceived threat.
This 'selfish gene' type behaviour has resulted in the few obtaining full control over the majority of resources available. That makes the few feel secure and protected and they like that very much. If they had to share so that the majority could live better lives then they would not feel as secure and protected and 'chosen' as they do and they don't like that prospect.
That's why they are quite willing to kill so called humanists/socialists in their millions, like they have done in history. BUT, they will eventually understand that we left the jungle rules behind us a long time ago and they don't have to act purely based on their base, Darwinian, survival instincts and their primal fears. They will understand and accept the imperative of a more equitable society eventually as the majority will eventually succeed in making them understand.
I must pray ... for humanity as there's literally nothing else I can do. :grin:
Pray on my behalf too, because I don't use to pray myself. :smile:
Dear Lord,
Please bless Greece and her people. Amen!
:pray: :pray: :pray:
Agent Smith & Alkis Piskas
Yes, completely agree. Democracy really works when the citizens are allowed to take part in important decisions.
Quoting Alkis Piskas
The consequences are pretty bad too. Here happened similar because 1 equals to 166.6 pesetas. So yes the people got confused at the beginning.
To be honest I personally think that in economical affairs only Germany really got a big win inside eurosystem. We are different nations and we see the economy in different ways. For example your country and mine tend to depend a lot on tourism and food products. But Germany is pure industry so does wins a lot of benefits in the modern era. The Euro is made just for those countries not the Mediterranean fellas
Thanks.
It's always Germany that wins. The West left --if not helped-- the ex-nazi, criminal and enemy of the World country become the most powerful county in Europe! How intelligent is that?
Quoting javi2541997
Certainly. Congrats to Danes and Swedes who escaped the euro trap!
Agreed. I am jealous of Nordics. They have a very profitable monetary system. They do not depend on euro and their currency is good. I think the UK has always been clever in this context. They kept the Pound even when they were part of the European Union.
He should have wrote: 'Money works in horrific ways its evils to perform.'
That was really clever indeed. I just saw that GBP to EUR ratio has a raising trend since 2020 (https://www.statista.com/statistics/1034391/monthly-exchange-rate-gbp-eur-worldwide/)
Not that this has anything to do with the topic! :grin:
I suppose we should not extend this off-topic subject anymore ...
I found something quite interesting regarding referendums in Europe:
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/IDAN/2022/729358/EPRS_IDA(2022)729358_EN.pdf
I have extracted the table showing the number of referendums and constitutional provisions performed in European countries (1957-2016):
Source: Cheneval F., Ferrin M., (2018) Referendums in the European Union: Defective by birth?, Journal of Common Market Studies, Volume 56, Number 5. pp. 1178-1194.
Would you believe that Belgium and Germany have not carried out a single referendum in the last 60 years?
On the other hand, check Denmark and Ireland. Also Non-EU Issues for Latvia, Lithuania and Sweden. all northern countries! There must be some correlation there ...
BTW, there was another referendum carried out in Greece, in 2015, to decide whether Greece should accept the bailout conditions in the country's government-debt crisis proposed jointly by the European Commission. Well, 61% of the Greeks voted against. Yet, nothing changed ... The bailout conditions were accepted nevertheless!! So, this proved to be a useless referendum!
(Lack of) Democracy reigns in in Europe!
Well, at least you voted against something. Here our governors just applied whatever the European Commision said regarding debt crisis. This context is quite similar to Covid issues and "next generation funds". Yes, it is true we are receiving a large quantity of money but this only means that the EU lobbies would have more power in my country and would erode our sovereignty.
The European Commission and European Central Bank play with us like puppets. But it is true that I perceive they tend to be "germanic" I mean, they promulgate laws so called "Directives" rooting in favour of German interests.
Quoting Alkis Piskas
Yes, they have more custom on make a lot of referendums in whatever topics or issues. Nordics are known for being true representative democracies. It surprises me Ireland. I never expected they pose a big number of referendums. Well I guess it could be related to historical issues. They got the independence thanks to a referendum.
I had no idea about Ireland either.
Anyway, what I want to stress, and that's why I brought in this table, is that referendums are the main indicative feature of Democracy. I cannot think of anything else that is comparable.
Indeed, how else can one determine how much democratic a country is? Powerful unions and syndicates? They have their own interests and they don't represent the whole country. This might be a good subject for discussion. I don't know however if it fits in here. (Political philosophy?)
In my opinion, governments can only justify their existence by preventing a more forceful system from taking over, and should therefore be chiefly concerned with exercising no more power than is strictly necessary.
Every right a government ascribes to its citizens needs to be weighed carefully, because it will inherently require the exercise of force to provide this right.
Every right for citizens to be provided with things necessarily requires other citizens to be forced to provide those things.
Why? Because those who benefit from massive wealth inequality dont want it. Then the millions theyve brainwashed over decades rise to defend their positions.
What anyone who complains about government leaves out is their commitment to private tyranny and plutocracy.
No reason why we cant have a new bill of rights tomorrow except for the above.
Because most of the citizens (future voters) do not understand the issue or do not care at all. As you said in one of the paragraphs the politicians tend to brainwashed to defend their own position. It is very difficult to fix something which is so broken.
It is true, the political structure is so complex that I don't even know how really works. But what I really feel is the fact of how far away is from the citizens
Thank you for your constructive response! You are a scholar and a gentleman. Please get back to us with some feedback after you have studied the suggested manuscript. Let us know what you thought of it. Since the kindle edition of it got some very-fine reviews, I believe it was worth the effort to scribble it out. If even one high-school Ethics instructor (or college professor) adopts ideas from it for his/her class, then it will have reached its intended audience.
p.s. I like your attitude. It is positive; and is an indication that you will go far in life, get results of which one may be proud, and you will be happy and a success -- both.
I couldn't agree more. You have a good mind, and even better: you have great values, and a clear understanding of facts.
Finland, in its constitution, guarantees every citizen the right to a job. If they can't find work that will pay them an adequate and reasonable living income, then the government says it will do the responsible thing and give them useful work. Why can't all the other countries do the same? You argue that "we get in our own way" by the extreme inequality we permit to endure. Lately, the Dems with their Inflaction Reduction Act, have raised slightly the tax that the super-wealthy have to pay (as a way for the legislation to be eventually budget neutral. ally, Thatt is some progress. Thus they are complying with the definition of 'good government.'
We could also learn a lot from the Danes, and the Norwegians. When I visited Denmark the welll-to-do complainedloudly about the 'high taxes,' but when asked if they wanted to live anywhere else they reacted: with a definite "No!!"
Thank you Mr. Katz, I appreciate that feedback and well-wishing. I feel I am on a positive course in my life, which is the result of being open to comments and work(s) such as yours.
https://amzn.to/3wX3Cci
[quote="Josh Alfred;735808
https://amzn.to/3wX3Cci[/quote]
Josh Alfred: Thank you for bringing me up-to-date on what Peter Joseph has been doing lately. He has been involved, constructively, in bringing us all closer to living in a world in which Ethics is applied ...especially in the realm of Economics and a sane distribution (allocation) of resources. He was quite active in what used to be known as 'the zeitgeist movement.' I will definitely get his book, and may write a review of it. I invite the rest of you to do the same. The book's title is The New Human Rights Movement. Happy reading folks!
Once again, thanks, Josh, for the lead ...when you suggest we peruse this book. Let's trust that it inspires some readers to join that movement, to put it into action.
After you have read, or better yet, studied, my modest scribbles -- that STRUCTURE OF ETHICS paper -- I would appreciate your giving me your impressions, thereby providing the author with some feedback.
Yes, study it, take notes, and if you find something quotable or memorable, spread the word to your friends and contacts in re the concepts you liked.
Yours for ethics, Dr. Katz.
From what I've been able to gather so far, these are some of the proposals that author Joseph offers for us to consider ...and if you care, help implement into actuality: he suggests
More open-source developments;
evolving to what he calls "a sharing-successes economy";'
learning from the U.B.I. experiments that are already working out well;
more Access;
more Localization;
use of networked digital feedback, and
a much-fuller use of Automation ....until eventually all unpleasant work will be done by robots!!!
Of course - let's not kid ourselves - people today will not immediately discard their profit-driven ways to embrace this vision - nor that of an Ethical World, of which I speak -- without lots of prior education [and maybe even some programmed literature availability, designed for instruction.] They won't rush to gain the benefits Mr. Joseph outlines ...an economy which reduces waste to a minimum ...until they have a deeper understanding, and are inspired by the insight.
https://amzn.to/3wX3Cci
So - everyone - where do you stand on these topics? Can you buy into it? Would you advocate, campaign, or in some way work for it?
Let's hear your views.
Because as Kant once said: "Theory without practice" [without applying the theory to life, without experience, or putting the theory into action] "is mere intellectual play."
A good government is one that continuously improves the quality of life of its citizens by enabling them to upgrade voluntarily the life of those around them. It will offer the opportunity for people to vote by referendum on all important matters. It will quickly adopt life-enhancing policies that are working well elsewhere."
Earlier I wrote about what the United States could learn from Finland. Its Constitution has a provision that provides for the government to be an Employer of Lat Resort if a citizen cannot find work in the private sector that offers better pay and more benefits. Then the government will offer the citizen a job.
We also can learn from the way Norway conducts its penal system. We can adopt the best ideas from how Finland conducts its Education system; and how the state of Hawaii encourages electric cars by having lots of charging stations readily available. The concept of "success-sharing" is Ethics applied. Let us all now take the wise step of making this concept as one of our personal Moral Principles: "I am devoted to success-sharing."
We would add this to "Do no harm" and to "Respect others as much as I possibly can." and to "Be kind and considerate; be ready to be helpful." Etc. See the list of suggested moral standards offered in Chapter Three, "What is Morality" in the essay titled THE STRUCTURE OF ETHICS. Here is a link to it:
http://www.myqol.com/wadeharvey/PDFs/THE%20STRUCTURE%20OF%20ETHICS.pdf