Four Freedoms

A typically thoughtless response to the

minimum wage discussion.

Discussion about assistance efforts often ends in judgement and criticism.  The unaddressed issue:  why bother with assistance efforts in the first place?

Why might government behave as though they had a responsibility to those in need?

As an individual, am I responsible for others in the community who are less fortunate than I?  Should that which I've earned be given without my consent to others who didn't earn it?  No, of course not.

I've given my consent, however, so there's no problem as long as I remember that.  As a nation, we've acknowledged that our participation in this country's community and benefits includes support for basic human rights which include freedom from want.  I am my brother's keeper.

One of the historical threads:

In the recovery years after the Great Depression when millions had suffered so severely at the hands of the wealthy, President Franklin D. Roosevelt in his state of the union address declared four fundamental freedoms that everyone should enjoy.

"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." ~ FDR 1941 State of the Union Address

This declaration of the four freedoms was echoed through the war years and emerged in the international community through the United Nations universal declaration of human rights.

Underneath the formalities, we find the basic purpose of human existence; not just the survival of the strongest, but that we would live graciously together, that we would care for one another and do as we ourselves hope would be done for us.  Sound familiar?

Roosevelt's declaration of freedom was not without substance.  He lists the benefits of democracy, including economic opportunity, employment, social security, and the promise of "adequate health care".  The first two freedoms, of speech and worship, are protected by the First Amendment in the United States Constitution.  His inclusion of the latter two freedoms went beyond the traditional values protected by the U.S. Bill of Rights. Roosevelt endorsed a broader human right to economic security and anticipated what would become known decades later as the "human security" paradigm in social science and economic development. He also included the "freedom from fear" against national aggression before the idea of a United Nations for this protection was envisioned or discussed by world leaders and allied nations.

The essential addition to today's debate is regarding how we might effectively accomplish these goals.  Or, as a culture and nation, we might abandon such humanitarian intent entirely; that's on the table as well.

Survey says ....!

... mostly nonsense (i.e., without sensibile content).

Public opinion, as offered by the media, gives some insight, but little validity beyond the casual conversation level.  Few inquiries, even among independent surveyors, are truly unbiased.

See The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly of Public Opinion Polls

The announcement an opinion poll is of itself propaganda, raising the subject in public awareness and offering 'popular' positions on a subject without including much in the way of serious thought or consideration in depth.  That's deliberate, of course.

What's the result?  Often, we're left with polarization based on little thought, science, or history; more on feelings than facts.

Along that line; consider the history and purpose of the marketplace.  It is either for competition or cooperation, for individual or for mutual benefit, success for all or for one at the expense of others.

    The marketplace began as a place where we could sell to

    each other and go home at the end of the day with the things

    we needed. That was the idea, anyway.

    It worked among the villages along the Niger River for 

    sixteen centuries.  When times were tough, they flexed 

    a bit to make sure everyone had enough to get by.

The public discussion could and in fact has been offered as capitalism vs. communism vs. socialism.

Each of the three economic and governmental models is defensible in moderation.  Each is beneficially incorporated to one degree or another in every developed nation.  The negative aspects of each are the result of excess by a few power players, not from the basic concepts.

Public roads and highway systems, municipal utilities, community and state schools and universities, are all expressions of communistic solutions.

Assistance programs fall perhaps into the socialist category as do health departments and law enforcement, product safety standards and oversight of trade practices.

Wall Street and the financial district; the New York Stock Exchange
draped with the American Flag, viewed from Washington's statue.

Competition often gives rise to monopolistic power; the title of 'Robber Baron' rose from just such abuse of the marketplace and the workforce.  Left to compete without restraint, the few would deprive the rest.  Destructive monopolies are constrained in some degree, thanks to socialistic regulation of the capitalist's free market.

Yet, if you ask public opinion, we have a free-market capitalist economy, the quick answer.  If you suggest 'socialist' moderations or 'communist' constraints, of course, you're attacked as un-American, despite the fact that such things have been imbedded in our governance since the earliest days.

Such is the thought process of the public when deliberately provoked by power players for the benefit of their agenda. The product of such a marketplace view is the benefit of some at the expense of many.  Morally considered, that's assault and robbery, yet such is often taught in schools and churches as the right way.  Why might that be, and who would advance such thinking?

Liberty and freedom, our life's blood, are perhaps more noble than can be expressed by Wall Street.

• Freedom is not the power to rise on the backs of others. 
• Freedom is not for getting ahead and leaving others behind any more than humanity's purpose is the survival just of the strongest.  
• The full declaration is a world-changer.

Government's role in ... the course of human events

The 'average' Wall Street salary and bonus package is 
$2033 per day (2015, CNN Money).  Fines levied against 
corporations for criminal misconduct affect corporate 
profits minimally but do not affect compensation.  There
are 167,800 people working in the NY financial district.

 ...  We hold these truths to be evidentiarily established, that the world finance industry in collaboration with governments no longer serves the citizenry, that its demonstrated purpose is a warfare of wealth and resource extraction waged against individual nations and the world to the detriment of humanity and the death of millions.   

Okay, that's pretty harsh. Understandable, but harsh nonetheless.

Forbes, 05/2015 - Five global banks were fined $5.6 billion for five years of exchange benchmark rigging. The settlement involves Barclays, Citigroup, J.P. Morgan Chase, Royal Bank of Scotland and UBS being fined variously by the Department of Justice, the Financial Conduct Authority, the Commodities Futures Trading Commission and pleading guilty to various criminal charges.

Four of the banks will also plead guilty to criminal conspiracy in manipulating currency exchange rates.

The fine levied against Barclays by the FCA was, at $2.4 billion, the largest in history.  “If you ain't cheating, you ain't trying,” is how a Barclays sales manager summed up their rate rigging crimes. Barclays stock rose 3% on the news, unimpeded by the illegal acts or the fine.

Meanwhile in the U.S., a joint investigation reports that from 2009 through 2014, our six largest banks collectively paid $130 billion in fines, settlements, and the like stemming from the financial crisis. Deutsche Bank paid a total of $1.9 billion. Over the same time period, the U.S. banking industry took in just over $500 billion in profits, and its combined assets are in the vicinity of $6.8 trillion.  The fines are inconsequential.

Nothing has changed.  The fines are paid to governments, not to those who were defrauded, of course.

Understand, this is not about stock shares and businesses, not about savings or investment, and not about entrepreneurship or risk taking.  It's about a corrupted industry in collaboration with government that now does harm to every individual in the world.

You might want to see Never Again, the president's promise, 

or perhaps Grand Larceny on who steals the most, 

or maybe What He Told His Mother for just one story,

or Vegas Street, or Per Person Per Day

or, how about Part III; the Vampire, for an interesting depiction.

Marriage and Divorce

What is government's role in marriage?  Recent court rulings have raised the question.

Issues of fair and equal treatment under the law brought the same-sex marriage question to the forefront.  'Under the law' is particularly narrow, but it spilled out into questions of definition and discrimination.

Marriage didn't arise from our law; its history precedes existing governments.  It has been understood among peoples around the world in a variety of ways. Governments have enacted laws after the fact to handle issues of property rights, inheritance, and taxation. Too, it's been necessary to deal with polygamy, to protect children from forced or coerced marriage, to recognize interracial marriage, and to defend married women from abuse.  Marriages have been performed by both civil and religious authorities, as well as by tribal and community groups. In earlier years, marriage was a private matter without official ceremony.  The church has made laws and rules also.

From our recent history, the occasion of marriage has been recognized by the individuals and their community in a particular fashion and often tied to deep personal conviction.  In our Judeo-Christian tradition, it's a covenant between husband and wife, and more.  The secular government's needed role was to recognize the change in status of the two individuals and little else.  The government's intruding with a new legal definition of marriage has perhaps been the critical difficulty for many.


Today, we're faced with a legal redefinition of what marriage is, a new meaning for a word we've commonly used all our lives.   The term 'marriage' has had a precise use in our culture, shaped by faith and conviction, but now without the consent of the church or the people, the word has been redefined.

It would perhaps be equally onerous if government were to enact law defining a 'Christian' or a 'Muslim' as a checklist of qualifying conditions.

Governments face the extraordinarily difficult task of negotiating from within cultural change.  No easy answers and not a job I envy.

One wonders if it isn't time to divorce government's role from the institution of marriage entirely.  Doing so raises a number of problems, of course, but the question is now in the public forum.

The word and its definition are not the issue, IMHO.

Marriage has become less common.  The U.S. and EU have seen a decline in marriage rate in recent generations.  Married households in the U.S. fell by a third since 1960.  Do we know why?

Reasons offered from the social and political arena include:

• Gay marriage
• Government subsidies
• Women increasing in the workforce
• The demasculation of men
• The divorce rate
• The media and their sensual focus
• The economy, particularly affluence

None provides a clear path of cause and effect.
It's an opportunity for thoughtful inquiry, perhaps.  What has changed?  Is it changing now, or is the change well behind us?


Statistics from the Pew Research Center: "About four-in-ten Americans think that marriage is on the rocks. No, not their marriage. The institution of marriage ... No matter what one thinks about the institution’s future, there’s no getting around its stark contraction during the past half century. Some 72% of all adults in the United States were married in 1960. By 2008, just 52% were ... most Americans now embrace the ideal of gender equality between spouses. ... some 62% say that marriages are better when husbands and wives both have jobs and both share responsibility for the household and kids."
Source: Pew Research Center. The Decline of Marriage and Rise of New Families.  Pewsocialtrends.org. 11/18/2010.

Note: such survey numbers reflect opinions expressed anonymously rather than actual behavior or conscious decision, but the results do suggest that cultural values have changed whether by thoughtful decision or unconscious acquiescence.

Survival Level

2015 Federal Poverty Guidelines – 48 Contiguous States & DC

Persons in household      2015 Federal Poverty Level

1                                                $11,770

2                                                $15,930

Daily News reporter Chelsia Rose Marcius is

doing the food stamps challenge of eating

only $29 dollars worth of food for a week.

Read 'poverty level' as 'survival level'; just the basics, just food and shelter perhaps.  Getting an education, staying healthy, eating well, having a stable home in which to do homework, those are unlikely at the survival level.  Ask any inner-city school teacher.  Add perhaps the costs of a car so you can get to work, clothes for the kids, gas and electricity so you can cook and stay warm, insurance; it adds up to more than you've got.  Survival is just that; not dying.The poverty level (survival level) marks the upper limit of that category; families and individuals within the category fall variously below that line.

From the census bureau's most recent report:

• The official poverty rate is 14.5 percent.
• There are 45.3 million people in poverty. 
• The poverty rate is 2.0 percentage points higher than 2007, the year before the most recent recession.
• The poverty rate for children is 19.9 percent. ¹

Things that help and things that make progress difficult ...

Studies measuring the differences between income before and after taxes and government transfers, have found that without social support programs, poverty would be roughly 30% to 40% higher than the official poverty line indicates.^[1][2]

A week's food, assuming they only use the money they
have for food and not shelter or clothing or medicine or ...
Living in such circumstances ensures your long term
continuation in poverty, health problems, educational
deficiency,and reduced life expectancy.

Far below the poverty line, we've had to add another category; extreme poverty.

• In the U.S., there are 1.5 million households with children living in extreme poverty (less than $2/person/day; there are more if you include the elderly and others without children.
• About 2.8 million children live in extreme poverty households.  

A recent policy brief by the National Poverty Center (NPC) reports the number of  U.S. households living on less than $2 a day per person has increased by 130% since 1996, from 636,000 to 1,460,000 such households today.

That means about 4 million people in “the richest country on earth” (according to capitalism’s apologists) are surviving on less than $60 a month each, i.e., essentially not survivable.  

So what do we need to know and what can we do, individually and collectively, that will make a difference?

Just inches away ... (NV-17)

John woke in an instant.  It had been quiet, just some outside noises muffled by the walls of his refuge.  Suddenly, an intruder grabs him by the arm and drags him violently toward the exit. The grip on his arm tightens, and the bones break under the pressure.  The shoulder separates and muscles are torn; tendons stretch to the limit and are torn from their roots. Flesh tears and separates as the arm is pulled free.  He bleeds, and in pain intense beyond description, he becomes aware of the same crushing grip, now on his leg ....  John dies, just inches away from being born.  He'd expected another few weeks before making the trip, but even this early, he might have lived.  

April was born prematurely at 25 weeks gestation.  She survived.  She a year old now.

Viability is just one measurement.

Among the issues before us these days and in the upcoming election as well, what will be the future of personhood? If a child is a person after being born, how about seconds before?  Or days?  And at what point does parental responsibility begin?

In our culture, this is not a simple yes or no.  Unintended pregnancy is the first and perhaps most important decision point, and many are not equipped with information or answers. For a preventative solution, we're perhaps encumbered by widespread abandonment of our earlier moral principles, by a sexualized advertising industry, and by an objectivization of women and girls. Feminists have attacked the problem, Christians have spawned a homeschool and family counterculture, thoughtful subculture segments have pulled back from the mainstream. Generally, they agree.  They hope to protect their children from the shallow, irresponsible behavior so commonly associated with sexual freedom in our world today.  Why did that behavior arise, and how might it be appropriately reigned in?

Beyond that, there's the extraordinary burden of choice a pregnant mother faces.  How might she face a complicated pregnancy or congenital defects and the longer term implications?  While we might have personal convictions about the right answer, culture and science provide a gray area where it's left to individual choice.  It's often framed in 'likelihood of survival' and 'likelihood of physical or mental difficulties'.

It's all both thoughtful and defensible. Every purposefully pregnant mother is pro-life in some measure, but can circumstances intrude and make a different choice acceptable?  For many, yes. Many.

Such difficult questions are the basis of defensible choice and of leaving the choice to the mother.

Is life sacred?  Of course.  Choices should reflect that fact.  With liberty comes responsibility.  Great responsibility