Opinion of the following statement

[Nym90]

In the future days which we seek to make secure, we look forward to a world founded upon four essential human freedoms.

The first is freedom of speech and expression - everywhere in the world.

The second is freedom of every person to worship God in his own way - everywhere in the world.

The third is freedom from want, which, translated into world terms, means economic understandings which will secure to every nation a healthy peacetime life for its inhabitants - everywhere in the world.

The fourth is freedom from fear, which, translated into world terms, means a world-wide reduction of armaments to such a point and in such a thorough fashion that no nation will be in a position to commit an act of physical aggression against any neighbor - anywhere in the world.

That is no vision of a distant millennium. It is a definite basis for a kind of world attainable in our own time and generation. That kind of world is the very antithesis of the so-called "new order" of tyranny which the dictators seek to create with the crash of a bomb.

------

Strongly agree

[Nym90]

Roosevelt's four freedoms.

I generally agree, though I have some reservations about the way "freedom from want" could be interpreted.  Liberal groups would love to claim that this means people are entitled to a certain standard of living, even if they refuse to work, and that I oppose.

Extreme interpretations of well-intended philosophies, mostly by liberals, has caused our society tremendous harm.

Perhaps there should be a corollary of the "four responsibilities" to go along with it.

Above all, I think FDR was trying to point out that economic security and national security, however, are freedoms just as much as, and are just as important as, that which we normally assosciate with freedom, like freedom of speech and of religion. So focusing only on government intervention in these areas as taking away rights rather than granting them is a short-sighted way to look at things.

It's a general acknowledgement of the fact that freedom cuts both ways. I definitely oppose being entitled to a certain standard of living for those who don't work, but I strongly support the idea that no one who is willing to work should live in poverty.

Obviously freedom from fear can be taken to the extreme as well, to mean that we should have no civil liberties at all. That would be just as bad as taking freedom from want to the extreme.

[Nym90]

Strongly disagree. I do not see why people should be free from "want." If an individual wants or needs something, he should work for it--he should not expect the rest of society to provide it for him.

Furthermore, Roosevelt makes it seem as if these four freedoms are the most important of all. But that is not the case; there are some rights that are far more essential, such as the right to own property.

I agree that people should have to work, but I also find it morally objectionable, not to mention overall bad for the economy, for people who work to live in poverty. Taken in absolutist terms, I would agree that people never can be completely without want, just as they can never be completely without fear, either.

However, that does not mean that they are not essential freedoms which should not be pursued as vigorously as other freedoms.

[Nym90]

I agree that people should have to work, but I also find it morally objectionable, not to mention overall bad for the economy, for people who work to live in poverty.

Could you explain why it is morally objectionable for an individual who works to remain in poverty? In a free market, every individual receives the fair market value of his labor. If it so happens that someone's labor is insufficiently valuable to meet his needs, then society is not to blame. The worker must merely change his occupation.

Furthermore: In absolutist terms, it may be "bad for the economy" if some people who work remain in poverty. However, the economy would be even worse if the government attempted to solve the issue of poverty through taxation.

To answer the question of why I feel it is a moral issue: I see it as a social contract; those who contribute to the productivity and well-being of society should not have to fear for where their next meal is going to come from. I do not believe in an unrestricted free market as the be all and end all and feel that we have a moral obligation as a society to provide for those who are willing to provide for us.

I don't believe the economy would be worse due to an increase in demand for goods and services caused by people being pulled over and above the poverty line. I think that demand side economics makes more sense than supply side, in addressing the problem of economic growth. But that's starting to get somewhat off topic of this thread.