Quick fake review of "Second Bill of Rights: FDR's Unfinished Revolution and Why We Need it More than Ever"

So. Talking/discussing this book (well, the introduction) with C. Here's some of the comments that came out of it:

There's a difference between "rights" and "privileges", which I guess is important - but much more important to me is the difference between what a healthy, positive society does/enacts/spends money and effort on versus what it chooses to leave alone or up to individuals. But there's an even more interesting distinction, which keeps becoming more and more apparent to me as I talk things over with C. It's this: laws declaring "must not!" versus laws declaring "must!" Another way to look at this, that I really like but haven't finished thinking through yet, is a passive law (one that requires little to no action to enact) versus an active law. An example would be a law against murder (a "must not" or "passive" law) versus a law commanding citizens to pay taxes (a "must!" or "active" law).

The Bill of Rights has an interesting mix of "active" and "passive" language in it. Or maybe I'll stick with the "must" and "must not" phrasing of C. Examples: Freedom of speech, religion, unreasonable search and seizure, right to bear arms (which I don't like, but it's an example nonetheless) are all Must Not rights/freedoms. Right to a job, to earn enough for food/clothing/recreation, of all farmers to raise crops and sell them at a price allowing for a pleasant living, for every business to operate in an environment free of unfair competition and domination from monopolies, of every family to a decent home, to adequate medical care and to achieve and enjoy good health, to adequate protection in old age from nasty events, to a good education are all Musts. (The "musts" all come from FDR's second bill of rights).

I support "must" laws in many cases, but not as rights! They are privileges granted by a sane and healthy society to encourage future sanity and health of its members. "Must nots" I also support, also not really as rights though. I think they are foundations of a strong society and if people want to live in a pleasant environment they are required. But that doesn't make them rights, it just makes them incredibly sensible and pragmatic.

Is eating food a "right" of being alive? No, people starve all the time. But it's unpleasant, and leads to death, and is generally to be avoided at all costs. So a good family (or on a larger scale, a society) provides its members with access to food.