Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

bvar22

(39,909 posts)
23. In a Democracy, some things should never be "comoditized" (privatized).
Sat Apr 26, 2014, 03:00 PM
Apr 2014

*Education (No Publicly Funded Private *Charter* Schools)

*Prisons

*Voting (no private, secret coded Voting Machines)

*Military (no armed "Private" contractors)

*Police

*Access to Health Care

[font size=3]FDR Economic Bill of Rights[/font]

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[font size=3] established for all—regardless of station, race, or creed.[/font]

Among these are:

*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.

All of these rights spell security. And after this war is won we must be prepared to move forward, in the implementation of these rights, to new goals of human happiness and well-being.

[font size=3]America's own rightful place in the world depends in large part upon how fully these and similar rights have been carried into practice for all our citizens.[/font]


Please note that the above are stipulated as Basic Human RIGHTS to be protected by our government,
and NOT as COMMODITIES to be SOLD to Americans by For Profit Corporations.




Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

NOVEMBER 14, 2007 MOUNTAIN VIEW, CA ...... Segami Apr 2014 #1
January 14, 2014--Net Neutrality struck by the DC Circuit Court..... msanthrope Apr 2014 #9
I'm not a brilliant mind,.. Segami Apr 2014 #13
Well, the problem is that the January ruling allowed just that...a two tiered system. Take a look msanthrope Apr 2014 #16
Allowed is very different from required. merrily Apr 2014 #26
And your point would be what? nt msanthrope Apr 2014 #27
The comment speaks for itself. merrily Apr 2014 #28
No--it really doesn't. If you have a citation from the court decision that explains msanthrope Apr 2014 #29
Court opinion saying allowed is different from required? LOL! merrily Apr 2014 #31
I still don't understand your point....can you clarify what you are saying? nt msanthrope Apr 2014 #33
It's not esoteric. It means what it says. merrily Apr 2014 #34
you'v now spent as much energy laughing at the question demwing Apr 2014 #35
Wrong. I laughed at the request for a quote from the court explaining it. merrily Apr 2014 #36
No, you've missed it again. demwing Apr 2014 #40
.... merrily Apr 2014 #58
.... merrily Apr 2014 #57
Ummmm merrily Apr 2014 #25
Intelligent people don't cater to childish games, you should know that by now. What you are doing sabrina 1 Apr 2014 #43
You seem perturbed. Are you upset about the other thread? nt msanthrope Apr 2014 #46
That's pathetic. You should be ashamed. Scuba Apr 2014 #53
I assumed you were very perturbed to post it. No need to be perturbed sabrina 1 Apr 2014 #56
Reclassifying ISPs as Common Carriers. joshcryer Apr 2014 #49
That was then. Autumn Apr 2014 #2
ummmm.... warrprayer Apr 2014 #3
They stacked the FCC with former Comcast and Verizon Attorneys.... Segami Apr 2014 #4
Yep warrprayer Apr 2014 #5
Yes, Wheeler is a former Cable Lobbyist, now head of the FCC. sabrina 1 Apr 2014 #44
That is what he SAYS. bvar22 Apr 2014 #6
+1 pa28 Apr 2014 #15
Sssshhhh, you're not supposed to be pointing these out. What you are supposed to do sabrina 1 Apr 2014 #47
+2 840high Apr 2014 #48
So troubling, and the consequences will not likely be good. n/t Jefferson23 Apr 2014 #55
Indeed---explain how Net Neutraility and this decision are to be reconciled? msanthrope Apr 2014 #7
First you explain where you stand on this issue. I support net neutrality rhett o rick Apr 2014 #19
I already did, upthread, and in other threads. But I will repeat myself. msanthrope Apr 2014 #21
I am sorry I missed your up thread post. Thanks for your thoughts. rhett o rick Apr 2014 #22
Wheeler is actually a pretty decent guy, and very knowledgeable. But the problem we face in all msanthrope Apr 2014 #24
Municipal broadband is not a viable alternative. Lasher Apr 2014 #52
he's evolved on the issue. piratefish08 Apr 2014 #8
Shhhh we're busy making sure that the Patriot Act is allowed to sunset Obnoxious_One Apr 2014 #10
Hire a subordinate with the desired agenda to tie your hands whatchamacallit Apr 2014 #11
He called Tom Wheeler "The Bo Jackson of telecommunication" pa28 Apr 2014 #12
I read things like this and I am more convinced than ever jtuck004 Apr 2014 #14
New book: The Audacity of Chang....ing Promises Tierra_y_Libertad Apr 2014 #17
We aren't there yet but within 10 years reasonable broadband should be a commodity.... Swede Atlanta Apr 2014 #18
I think you missed the boat. "I have no problem with the idea that the more you use, whether it is rhett o rick Apr 2014 #20
In a Democracy, some things should never be "comoditized" (privatized). bvar22 Apr 2014 #23
+1! Thank you, bvar22! Enthusiast Apr 2014 #50
Free market bullshit Armstead Apr 2014 #30
I wish his backbone were as strong as his tongue Armstead Apr 2014 #32
Message auto-removed Name removed Apr 2014 #37
This message was self-deleted by its author hrmjustin Apr 2014 #38
Ironic to have so many videos on a thread about the FCC's decisions on net neutrality. merrily Apr 2014 #39
First, please see Reply 25, from the statement of the chair of the FCC merrily Apr 2014 #41
*Obama could have chosen a fierce advocate for net neutrality to head the FCC. He did not. Jefferson23 Apr 2014 #42
Thanks for the links merrily! Segami Apr 2014 #60
You're welcome Segami. merrily Apr 2014 #61
Friendly reminder, Net Neutrality 101: Jefferson23 Apr 2014 #45
We certainly can't rely on the supreme court to rule in favor of consumers/regular citizens. Enthusiast Apr 2014 #51
No, we can't..my purpose to post the info was more about clearing up any confusion anyone Jefferson23 Apr 2014 #54
I appreciate your help. Enthusiast Apr 2014 #59
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»NET NEUTRALITY Supported ...»Reply #23