Nope. 0 out of 6. Weaklings must die.

Where is my right to bear arms, freedom of assembly and free speech?

>>104182
In the first bill of rights.

>>104149
This was a SECOND bill of rights formed by FDR. Obviously shortened, but does not negate the original.

0/10

It's YOUR responsibility to give yourself all of those things

You can't have rights to services or goods.

>implying that the government can effectively provide all those things

laughinggirls.jpg

>forcing other people to pay for your shit
>"rights"

Cute.

The second bill of rights destroys the first bill of rights.

And are you that naive that you think the government can just magically provide something for people?

Are you mad?

>>104213
Are guns not a good?

Fucking FDR man. We'll never have a great president like that again.

What vague wording is "good education?" What the fuck is good? Liberal arts?

copypasta is old, 66 years old to be exact:

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.

Excerpt from President Roosevelt's January 11, 1944 message to the Congress

The second bill of rights should have been implemented decades ago, but the US Congress never made any effort of a constitutional amendment of these rights. I would love for them to be implemented in my lifetime.

>>104170
Social Darwinist detected.

I agree but the terminology is pretty vague.

>forcing other people to pay for your shit
Worked for you.

67*

I think we should exclude the boomers from these protections.

>>104233

If they expanded "good" to mean that all students are required to study physics, chemistry, biology, nutrition, physiology, or engineering, then I could see it as a good thing.

Op is the kind of faggot who thinks the government should pay $100k to every hipster wanting to get their art or philosophy degree

If we pay people to work even if they are not economically productive the economy will stagnate.

>own a business
>don't have the right to turn and incompetent down for a job

>own a business
>forced to pay someone more than they are worth

>be a taxpayer
>forced to pay for some lazy asshole's "free" house

>be a taxpayer
>be forced to pay for some fatass smoker's "free" medical care

>be a taxpayer
>be forced to pay for someone's insurance simply because they live in the same country as you

>be childless
>be forced to pay for Jon and Kate's kids' education

Some fucking "rights" you have there, fag.

>>104269
Rights for me but not for others!

I'm sure it's because "They caused this mess" or some shit. And I'm sure that every single person that was born then is responsible for your misery, am I right? Christ, you're bitter.

>>104293
Second bill of rights:

I have a right to your money. Why? Fuck you, that's why.

>>104297

Get the fuck out of here, son. Boomers must die. All of /old/ was in agreement. Boomers ruined the western world, and boomers must die.

anything that costs money isn't a right

>>104149

>Implying people don't already have the rights to these.

We just have to pay for them

>>104297
You're fuckin' A right they are. A whole generation of retards and assholes of the highest order Fuck all of them if they haven't gotten the ability to sink or swim yet. They had their fucking shot. I want mine.

I WANT MY CHANCE YOU BASTARDS.

>>104230

FDR was a Tyrant criminal.

>National Firearms Act 1934
>Confiscation of US citizen's property through Executive Order (Gold)
>Extended the Great Depression by 7 years
>New Deal
>Possibly allowed Pearl Harbor to happen
>Broke 2 term tradition
>Japanese internment through Executive Order
>Judicial Procedures Reform Bill of 1937

I will never know why people like this despicable tyrant.

1936 Soviet Constitution included Constitution recognized collective social and economic rights including the rights to work, rest and leisure, health protection, care in old age and sickness, housing, education, and cultural benefits.

>>104233
Good education means a good quality public education at least from pre-k to university funded by the tax payers.

>>104280
Then what about other important degrees such as Government and Politics? Information Technology? Journalism? Those are important social degrees that people can get jobs in. Are those degrees the same worth as the one's you mentioned.

>>104343

Don't forget the internment of Germans and Italians. The Japanese of course had it worse, but still

FDR is the worst president this country has ever had, even worse than Woodrow Wilson

>>104253
>Social Darwinist
He's a Socialist?!

>>104328
>Right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
>Right to life
>life
>living
>water
>costs money

Hey, I think you're right, water should be free.

>>104343
>Broke two term tradition

typical conservative education

>>104328
http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/

Article 25.

(1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.

Article 26.

(1) Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages. Elementary education shall be compulsory.

>>104328

This. Money represents will in any free market - i.e., where businesses are owned, funded, and run privately and voluntarily, with goods sold to customers who volunteer their money for them, who in turn have earned their money through voluntary payment.

Considering that "a job" is just an ongoing trade you're basically saying people have the right to force others to buy their services whether they want them or not, whether they're useful or not.

A job isn't an end in itself.

>>104149

OP Your pic reminds me of communism

>>104149

Absolutely hilarious. Hence it noT passing when first proposed.

>>104324
And this is why you aren't taken seriously. What are you, some kind of edgy teenager?

>>104324
Is this a joke? Or are your political views seriously no deeper than "I Want mine!". No underlying principals or philosophy--simply self-absorption disregarding the rights of everyone that isn't you. And you attempt to claim the moral high ground? You just wish you were on the other side of the con/gun.

I'm inclined to believe you're trying to destroy any credibility for the kind of people that share the views you espouse.

>>104398
I don't think you understand. You don't have a right to water. You have a right not to have your life harmed.

>>104487

oh so corporations could just monopolize the water supply and its okay for them to charge us for?

We need a second bill of rights. It should be something roughly like the following:

1) Congress shall not lay any imposts or duties on imports or exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing its inspection laws.

2) Congress shall make no law abridging the freedoms of sellers of goods or labor to price their products or services.

3) No state shall make or impose any law which shall abridge the right of any citizen of the United States to follow any occupation or profession of his choice.

4) The 16th amendment is hereby repealed.

5) The congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes on incomes of persons, from whatever sources derived, without apportionment among the several states and without regard to any census or enumeration provided that he same tax rate is applied to all income in excess of occupational and business expenses and a personal allowance of a fixed amount. The word person shall exclude corporations and other artificial persons.


A balanced budget amendment, and an anti-inflation amendment must also be considered. These things will do more to improve the standard of living and general lot of the people than that list of socialist nanny state entitlements.

>>104547

Explain how this is even possible? And without referencing Frank Herbert novels, please.

(Incidentally, water monopolization didn't even work in Dune, as I recall).

Jesus christ what kind of horrible shit is this?

PART ONE:
> A Job
Perhaps, but what job? And how do you ensure that there is a demand for that occupation? I've been an underwater basket weever for twenty years now, but... no one seems to have a need for underwater basket weeving around the house these days...

> Adequate wage and decent living
How do you define "adequate wage"? Simply being able to afford food? Or nothing less than two cars, five computers and a broadband internet connection?

> A decent home
Again, define "a decent home"... Is a mud hut or Soviet-esque cement apartments (which are no less than man-made caves) "decent"? Or is it a white picket fence on top of a breezy hill? Who's gonna pay for anyone who decides that that "decent home" is no less than a multi-million dollar house in the Silicon Valley?

> Medical care
This is one I agree with the most. While we may have different views on what is "decent living" and "decent wages", we all generally have the sam human body with the same human weaknesses. This is one that certainly can be applied far more equally than other things... because it's not like a poor person with a broken arm is asking for anything more than a rich person with a broken arm (well, apart from anything other than "please fix my arm").

>>104149


>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.


Now we get to see all the reactionary anarcho-capitalist austrian/chicago schools come out and tell us that government is evil and the only way to do anything is to privatize everything and call it freedom.

PART TWO

> Economic protection in situations when you're not physically fit to work
Ditto. But I think it should be based on what you put in over anything else. When I was young, I always thought the Social Security money taken out of my paycheck was going to my own personal account. How shocked was I when I found out that it was NOT. As such, I think Social Security SHOULD be some kind of account where YOUR money is saved for you (because you're too stupid to save it yourself and you're just gonna blow it on booze and an Xbox 360) and where you can access it once you "retire". That way what you get is relative to your earnings and is thus fair for everyone... you only get what you put in, what's unfair about that?
 
> A good education
Access to good education (like schools that cost like $5/unit)? Or have the government pay for you to go to school (beyond stuff like the GI Bill where your free education is earned after service)?

While I agree with the list, some of it's vaguely defined aspects makes it easy pickings for it to be twisted by nefarious forces. This, as opposed to the ("First") Bill of Rights where EVERY entry is clearly defined.
* "We won't stop you from saying what you want"
* "We won't take your guns from you"
* "We won't tax you unless you agree to it."
* "We won't make you house soldiers during peace time"
* "We won't make you sell out yourself, your friends or family"
 
...y'know, PRECISELY DEFINED goals. All of which the Occupy movement has yet to do, which makes it prime failsauce.

I'll only agree with 4, 5, and 6.

>>104547

The only way a corporation (child of the state) could monopolize all water is with a shitload of gubbmint help.

>>104381
Don't forget about Carter. Hell, don't forget about Obama. FDR was bad, but compared to dumb and dumber, he is a solid third place for worst pres.

>>104228

The second amendment is more "we, the Government, won't take your guns" and less "we, the Government, are going to give you guns". Nothing in the (First) Bill of Rights entitles people to a good or service, they just say that the Government won't MAKE you do anything concerning those things.

For example--and this is something the Occupy movement doesn't quite get--the First Amendment means "the Government won't stop you from saying what you want", but that doesn't mean the Government HAS TO give you the resources for you to be able to say what you want.

>>104633
Ok. So lets get the gvt. out of the market, so it CANT contribute to the corruption.

Well #3 is why we're in the recession we're in today.

So... there's that fact

I think this is great idea OP.
We used to have this in the UK but sincve 1979 it has been steadily eroded.

You can read a bit about it here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-war_consensus

>>104666

> negative rights v. positive rights

>>104666

Hail Satan! I was trying to think of a way to properly phrase what I was thinking regarding this.

>>104608
The real problem with this is that, in our current monetary system, inflationary spending on the part of the government destroy savings in the long run.

The problem is that, unlike real "self-evident truths", the desire for goods and services change with society.

Look at the Eighteenth Amendment, when society changed to become an alcohol-free nation. Then society changed again, which required the Twenty-First Amendment to repeal the Eighteenth Amendment.

The thing is the current Bill of Rights (and the other amendments themselves) cover time-honored ideas; no matter how society changes, people will still appreciate the freedom of speech. Even the second amendment shows how goods-related laws--in this case, guns--fail to be completely "time honorable" because society changed. If a "Thirty-Fifth Amendment to the US Constitution" gave people the right to a "good home" (and clearly defined what they were)... it may suit the needs of that generation, but who knows what society wants in two hundred years time... Maybe they DON'T feel a house is enough to satisfy their needs, or perhaps they're not interested in owning homes at all to begin with.

Of course, it would be something else if we're dealing with Government PROGRAM to provide these things, since they don't require changes to the Constitution and thus can be created and canceled quite easily (relative to an Amendment to the Constitution, that is).

social systems like welfare and ect. should be policies of states, not the federal government.

its easier to force change in policy through the state government than the federal government.

The federal government should have a series of laws that hold true no matter the circumstance. Rights should be universal and Equal above all, ignoring race, religion, wealth, age, or gender, however unequal these groups may actually be in any way.

>>104486
Crom, I have never prayed to you before. I have no tongue for it. No one, not even you, will remember if we were good men or bad. Why we fought, or why we died. All that matters is that two stood against many. That's what's important! Valor pleases you, Crom... so grant me one request. Grant me revenge! And if you do not listen, then to HELL with you!

>>104701
>>104691

I'll admit, I don't quite understand the criticism. Do you feel that there is an inherent problem in phrasing laws and rights in terms of "We, the Government, WON'T do etc etc etc" versus "We, the Government, GRANT you etc etc etc"?

The problem *I* have with the Government "granting" me rights is... if they are "self-evident truths", then they exist regardless of what the government says. As such, I feel it's beter for the government to phrase them as "We WON'T do this" versus "We GRANT you this", as if they had the power to invent (or destroy) our "God-given" rights.

....

>>104704

OK, that's fair enough. It could also be a problem when you take inflation into account and the $100 you save today is only worth $10 in sixty years.

Well still, I do feel that what you get from the Government, money-wise, should be pegged to how much you earn, which is--to my understanding--the only way to determine how much someone is truly entitled to... that is to say, 5% of $50k/year and $5 million/year is fair and equal to everyone, since they all get 5% of what they worked to earn (let's not debate over whether someone who is rich "truly" "earned" their money). As such, what they get is exactly parallel to what they put in, and no one gets more than their actions entitled them to.

Maybe Social Security should go into an account where WE--the people--are earning the interest on it, and not the Government? Or something. I'm welcome to whatever ideas you may have, however, as I'm open to the idea that you have a much better and realistic idea than me! :)

Socialist state, communism, etc.

We've had 100 years of socialism castrating democratic countries and communism oppressing its own subjects. Still, no one ever learns.

Socialism is no good for businesses, and as soon as the revolution is over, the ruling class liquidates the old revolutionaries. IE: Stalin's purges.

>>104943
If the Federal Reserve were restricted in its monetary policies, inflation wouldn't be an issue. In fact, if we didn't HAVE any GSEs - see Fannie and Freddie - our economy would probably be a lot more stable.